Capitalization of negro [was: first draft//Daimon]
Ross Howard
from the backwards-quoted stuff I've snipped] wrote:
>> > i don't write Black or White or Mulatto or Negro or Olive-Skinned.. i don't
>> > consider them proper nouns, they're not the peoples of nations.
Nor are Jews or Muslims or Catholics or Quakers or Orientals or
Westerners or Ivy Leaguers.
And I wouldn't pay much attention on capitalisation conventions to
someone who doesn't even capitalise the first word of a sentence. Must
be one of them poets.
>> Not to belabour this, but I suspect my capitalization of Negro is
>> perhaps an age-related thing. It is a derivation of the word Negroid,
>> describing one of three racial divisions, the other two being Caucasian
>> [Caucasoid] and Mongolian [Mongoloid]. This nomenclature which I
>> learned in elementary school appears to have fallen into disuse in the
>> politically-correct world and may or may not have been disproved
>> scientifically in any case.
>i'm not sure it's politically-correct-ness that has me wondering.
>
>is a derivitave of a proper noun also a proper noun? is negro really just a
>derivitave of 'Negroid', or is Negroid truly a derivitave of the Spanish
>(Latin?) "negro"?
We got "Negro" from both the Spanish and Portuguese, who use the same
form for "black" (*negro(s)* m., *negra(s)* f.) ; negroid came along a
good bit later, an illogical bit of pseudoscientific nonsense derived
directly from "Negro".
>the questions abound!
I used to capitalise "Negro" for the same reason I still capitalise
"Black" [1] -- if you don't it can actually look at best untidy and at
worst even belittling when used, as it often was (and as "Black" still
is) in lists of minority groups. Does this look okay to you?
"Discrimination against Jews, Puerto Ricans, negroes, Italians and
the Irish..."?
[1. There is another reason for capitalising "Black"; "black" the
colour and "Black" the ethnic group are used in as different contexts
as "mob" meaning disorganised rabble and "Mob" meaning organised
crime. Most editors find such distinctions useful to avoid ambiguity.]
Ross Howard
[further cross-posted to alt.usage.english, where debate on this sort
of thing is much livelier and tends to be more in-depth.]
J. W. Love
capitalise "Black" [1] -- if you don't it can actually look at best untidy and
at worst even belittling when used, as it often was (and as "Black" still is)
in lists of minority groups.>>
The Chicago Manual of Style advises American editors to capitalize the "names
of racial, linguistic, tribal, religious, and other groupings of mankind"
(e.g., _Bushman, Caucasian, Frenchman, Mongol, Mormon, Negro,_ and _Pygmy_),
but to lowercase "designations based only on color, size, or local usage"
(e.g., _aborigine, black, bushman, caucasoid, colored, highlander, mongoloid,
negroid, pygmy, red man, redneck,_ and _white_).
JB
The Portuguese word for black is prieto.
> >the questions abound!
>
> I used to capitalise "Negro" for the same reason I still capitalise
> "Black" [1] -- if you don't it can actually look at best untidy and at
> worst even belittling when used, as it often was (and as "Black" still
> is) in lists of minority groups. Does this look okay to you?
> "Discrimination against Jews, Puerto Ricans, negroes, Italians and
> the Irish..."?
>
> [1. There is another reason for capitalising "Black"; "black" the
> colour and "Black" the ethnic group are used in as different contexts
> as "mob" meaning disorganised rabble and "Mob" meaning organised
> crime. Most editors find such distinctions useful to avoid ambiguity.]
I assume you similarly capitalize White.
--JB
Ross Howard
<job...@carolina.rr.comTRIMTHISPART> wrote:
>The Portuguese word for black is prieto.
If you mean *preto* (you seem not to be aware that the
diphthongisation of "e" is a Spanish phenomenon, rare in Portuguese)
yes it is the word for "black" -- when referring to the straight
colour in the 21st century, that is. However, another, older word --
and we're talking about the Portuguese slave traders' usage here,
remember -- as I correctly stated and you incorrectly refute, is
*negro*, which has been preserved in many common compounds For
instance, "black market" in Portuguese is *mercado negro*; "black
truffle" s *trufa negra*; the Black Sea is the *Mar Negro*, and, just
in case you refuse to accept that *negro* to identify people by their
skin colour, the Portuguese translation of "Black Panthers" is not,
as you would presusably have it, *Panteras Prietas* [sic], but rather
*Panteras Negras*.
Need I go on? Your comment was about as relevant and accurate as
pointing out that *colorado* isn't "red" in Spanish because nowadays
*rojo* is preferred in most neutral contexts.
>> [1. There is another reason for capitalising "Black"; "black" the
>> colour and "Black" the ethnic group are used in as different contexts
>> as "mob" meaning disorganised rabble and "Mob" meaning organised
>> crime. Most editors find such distinctions useful to avoid ambiguity.]
>
>I assume you similarly capitalize White.
I don't have much occasion to use it when listing minority groups. Do
you?
Ross Howard
Lynda
Ross Howard wrote:
>
> On Mon, 26 Feb 2001 03:55:47 GMT, somebody [impossible to figure out
> from the backwards-quoted stuff I've snipped] wrote:
>
> >> > i don't write Black or White or Mulatto or Negro or Olive-Skinned.. i don't
> >> > consider them proper nouns, they're not the peoples of nations.
>
> Nor are Jews or Muslims or Catholics or Quakers or Orientals or
> Westerners or Ivy Leaguers.
Jews are members of a faith, Muslims are members of the Nation of Islam,
Catholics are again, members of a faith, as are Quakers. Orientals come
from The Orient, and i've not ever had occasion to capitalize "westerners"
and Ivy League is an organization, hence proper noun.
i capitalize negro when writing "Negro College Fund" but there is no place,
no faith, no organization to substantiate negro, on its own, to be
considered a proper noun (that i know of).
>
> And I wouldn't pay much attention on capitalisation conventions to
> someone who doesn't even capitalise the first word of a sentence. Must
> be one of them poets.
oh, i love this snobbery. it's so very amusing.
>
> >> Not to belabour this, but I suspect my capitalization of Negro is
> >> perhaps an age-related thing. It is a derivation of the word Negroid,
> >> describing one of three racial divisions, the other two being Caucasian
> >> [Caucasoid] and Mongolian [Mongoloid]. This nomenclature which I
> >> learned in elementary school appears to have fallen into disuse in the
> >> politically-correct world and may or may not have been disproved
> >> scientifically in any case.
>
> >i'm not sure it's politically-correct-ness that has me wondering.
> >
> >is a derivitave of a proper noun also a proper noun? is negro really just a
> >derivitave of 'Negroid', or is Negroid truly a derivitave of the Spanish
> >(Latin?) "negro"?
>
> We got "Negro" from both the Spanish and Portuguese, who use the same
> form for "black" (*negro(s)* m., *negra(s)* f.) ; negroid came along a
> good bit later, an illogical bit of pseudoscientific nonsense derived
> directly from "Negro".
>
> >the questions abound!
>
> I used to capitalise "Negro" for the same reason I still capitalise
> "Black" [1] -- if you don't it can actually look at best untidy and at
> worst even belittling when used, as it often was (and as "Black" still
> is) in lists of minority groups. Does this look okay to you?
> "Discrimination against Jews, Puerto Ricans, negroes, Italians and
> the Irish..."?
yes.
would you write "Discrimination against Jews, Women, Negro(e)s, and
Irish.."?
if 'women' wouldn't achieve proper noun status in your statement, neither
should 'negro' as their function is similar; they describe a portion of
humanity based on a physical characteristic.
>
>
> [1. There is another reason for capitalising "Black"; "black" the
> colour and "Black" the ethnic group are used in as different contexts
> as "mob" meaning disorganised rabble and "Mob" meaning organised
> crime. Most editors find such distinctions useful to avoid ambiguity.]
>
> Ross Howard
Thanks for your time,
Lynda
>
> [further cross-posted to alt.usage.english, where debate on this sort
> of thing is much livelier and tends to be more in-depth.]
--
"if you don't like my fire,
then don't come around;
cause I'm gonna burn one down.
yes I'm gonna burn one down."
Ben Harper (Burn One Down)
Lynda
Ross Howard wrote:
>
> On Mon, 26 Feb 2001 18:30:38 GMT, JB
> <job...@carolina.rr.comTRIMTHISPART> wrote:
<snip>
> >
> >I assume you similarly capitalize White.
>
> I don't have much occasion to use it when listing minority groups. Do
> you?
that's not really the point. do you capitalize 'caucasian',('negro'),
'white', 'black', 'men', 'women' when listing divisions of humanity?
Whether those lists are of "minorities" or not, is irrelevant.
Lynda
--
Alec "Skitt" P.
"Lynda" <lsp...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3A9ADFD8...@hotmail.com...
Capitalization advice from someone who does not capitalize the beginning
word of a sentence, nor an "I", reminds me of a joke --
Guy #1: How do you pronounce "Hawaii"? Is it Hawaii, or Havaii?
Guy #2: It's Havaii.
Guy #1: Thanks!
Guy #2: You're velcome.
--
Skitt (in SF Bay Area) http://i.am/skitt/
I speak English well -- I learn it from a book!
-- Manuel of "Fawlty Towers" (he's from Barcelona).
meirm...@erols.com
<lsp...@hotmail.com> posted:
>
>
>Ross Howard wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, 26 Feb 2001 03:55:47 GMT, somebody [impossible to figure out
>> from the backwards-quoted stuff I've snipped] wrote:
>>
>> >> > i don't write Black or White or Mulatto or Negro or Olive-Skinned.. i don't
>> >> > consider them proper nouns, they're not the peoples of nations.
>>
>> Nor are Jews or Muslims or Catholics or Quakers or Orientals or
>> Westerners or Ivy Leaguers.
>
>Jews are members of a faith, Muslims are members of the Nation of Islam,
>Catholics are again, members of a faith, as are Quakers. Orientals come
>from The Orient, and i've not ever had occasion to capitalize "westerners"
>and Ivy League is an organization, hence proper noun.
>
>i capitalize negro when writing "Negro College Fund" but there is no place,
>no faith, no organization to substantiate negro, on its own, to be
>considered a proper noun (that i know of).
>
Nonetheless, there are more than those three bases for capitalization.
Given your practices, it *is* hard to take you seriously. It's sort
of like someone who wears cutoffs and t-shirts critiqueing (sp?)
high-fashion.
>
>>
>> And I wouldn't pay much attention on capitalisation conventions to
>> someone who doesn't even capitalise the first word of a sentence. Must
>> be one of them poets.
>
>oh, i love this snobbery. it's so very amusing.
>
I was born poor, but my parents sacrificed, and I worked and
struggled, and now I too have capital letters.
>>
Born west of
Pittsburgh Pa. 10 years
Indianapolis, 7 years
Chicago, 6 years
Brooklyn NY 12 years
Baltimore 17 years
Lynda
look, i'm posting to a ng, not preparing an essay.
i would honestly like to discuss this issue, but it seems that you attribute
too much to first appearances.
thanks anyway.
Lynda
>
> >>
>
> Born west of
> Pittsburgh Pa. 10 years
> Indianapolis, 7 years
> Chicago, 6 years
> Brooklyn NY 12 years
> Baltimore 17 years
--
Joe Fineman
> [1. There is another reason for capitalising "Black"; "black" the
> colour and "Black" the ethnic group are used in as different
> contexts as "mob" meaning disorganised rabble and "Mob" meaning
> organised crime. Most editors find such distinctions useful to avoid
> ambiguity.]
IIRC, the capitalization of "Negro" first became widespread after the
New York _Times_ took it up. According to the OED, that was in 1930,
in response to preferences expressed by Negroes, and was meant to be
respectful.
Capitalizing "Black" presumably has the same purpose, and is also, as
you point out, convenient, especially in countries such as the
U.S. where the one-drop rule prevails and many Blacks are not very
black. It does create a spurious contrast with "white", which is
seldom capitalized and is not likely to conform. (When I see "White"
I actually think of the obsolescent meaning "European right-winger",
tho I have only seen that a couple of times in my life.) Maybe the
best solution is to revert to "black" where the contrast would be
glaring, e.g. in "black & white together".
--- Joe Fineman j...@world.std.com
||: Failure teaches a valuable lesson: that we are liable to :||
||: fail again. :||
JB
>
> <job...@carolina.rr.comTRIMTHISPART> wrote:
>
> >The Portuguese word for black is prieto.
>
> If you mean *preto* (you seem not to be aware that the
> diphthongisation of "e" is a Spanish phenomenon, rare in Portuguese)
> yes it is the word for "black" -- when referring to the straight
> colour in the 21st century, that is.
You are wrong to imply that this is is only 21st century practice,
i.e., within the past 2 months. Preto/prieto is the preferred
Portuguese word for 'black'. And it is the only word these days for
the racial 'black'.
> However, another, older word --
> and we're talking about the Portuguese slave traders' usage here,
> remember -- as I correctly stated and you incorrectly refute, is
> *negro*, which has been preserved in many common compounds For
> instance, "black market" in Portuguese is *mercado negro*; "black
> truffle" s *trufa negra*; the Black Sea is the *Mar Negro*, and, just
> in case you refuse to accept that *negro* to identify people by their
> skin colour, the Portuguese translation of "Black Panthers" is not,
> as you would presusably have it, *Panteras Prietas* [sic], but rather
> *Panteras Negras*.
>
> Need I go on? Your comment was about as relevant and accurate as
> pointing out that *colorado* isn't "red" in Spanish because nowadays
> *rojo* is preferred in most neutral contexts.
Since you mention it, I disagree that [quote] *colorado* isn't "red"
in Spanish because nowadays *rojo* is preferred in most neutral
contexts [end quote]. 'Colorado', of course is red, no matter what
you say. Colorado and rojo are BOTH red.
> >> [1. There is another reason for capitalising "Black"; "black" the
> >> colour and "Black" the ethnic group are used in as different contexts
> >> as "mob" meaning disorganised rabble and "Mob" meaning organised
> >> crime. Most editors find such distinctions useful to avoid ambiguity.]
> >
> >I assume you similarly capitalize White.
>
> I don't have much occasion to use it when listing minority groups. Do
> you?
Last I checked, minority group status did not determine capitalization
status.
You have not answered the question: In view of your announced
predilection for capitalizing 'black' as an ethnic identifier, do you
similarly capitalize 'white' or 'yellow', or 'red' in similar
contexts?
--JB
N.Mitchum
-----
> Jews are members of a faith,
That's what I used to think. Judaism is a religion, I figured,
and anybody could join it and become a Jew. I said something like
this in a discussion with a couple of friends whom you'd call
secular Jews, and they looked at me like I was crazy. They firmly
believed the Jews were a race.
-----
> Muslims are members of the Nation of Islam,
>.....
Has this been reported to the Muslims of the Middle East? They
may be very interested to hear they belong to an American black
militant group.
-----
> i capitalize negro when writing "Negro College Fund" but there is no place,
> no faith, no organization to substantiate negro, on its own, to be
> considered a proper noun (that i know of).
>......
Whereas you don't even capitalize "I." Is that where this thread
started?
----NM
Dr Robin Bignall
[..]
>I was born poor, but my parents sacrificed, and I worked and
>struggled, and now I too have capital letters.
>
A self-made Capitalist, in fact. <g>
--
wrmst rgds
RB...(docr...@ntlworld.com)
*** new email address
Ross Howard
<job...@carolina.rr.comTRIMTHISPART> wrote:
>Ross Howard wrote:
>>
>> <job...@carolina.rr.comTRIMTHISPART> wrote:
>>
>> >The Portuguese word for black is prieto.
>>
>> If you mean *preto* (you seem not to be aware that the
>> diphthongisation of "e" is a Spanish phenomenon, rare in Portuguese)
>> yes it is the word for "black" -- when referring to the straight
>> colour in the 21st century, that is.
>
>You are wrong to imply that this is is only 21st century practice,
>i.e., within the past 2 months. Preto/prieto is the preferred
>Portuguese word for 'black'. And it is the only word these days for
>the racial 'black'.
What are you -- a politician? Apart from the above being patent balls
-- do a Web search on *os negros* or *dos negros* and weep -- it is
totally irrelevant to the etymology of the English word "Negro".
Unless I missed something, Spanish and Portuguese slave traders aren't
shipping millions of Africans to the Americas "these days".
>> Need I go on? Your comment was about as relevant and accurate as
>> pointing out that *colorado* isn't "red" in Spanish because nowadays
>> *rojo* is preferred in most neutral contexts.
>
>Since you mention it, I disagree that [quote] *colorado* isn't "red"
>in Spanish because nowadays *rojo* is preferred in most neutral
>contexts [end quote]. 'Colorado', of course is red, no matter what
>you say. Colorado and rojo are BOTH red.
Okay, so you are a politican. *Colorado* and *rojo* are BOTH red just
as *negro* and *preto* are BOTH black.
Ross Howard
[Them poets snipped for replies]
Lynda
"Robert E. Lewis" wrote:
>
> (alt.arts.poetry.comments and alt.english.usage snipped - not on my
> newsserver)
>
> Lynda <lsp...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:3A9ADFD8...@hotmail.com...
> >
> >
> > Ross Howard wrote:
> > >
> > > On Mon, 26 Feb 2001 03:55:47 GMT, somebody [impossible to figure out
> > > from the backwards-quoted stuff I've snipped] wrote:
> > >
> > > >> > i don't write Black or White or Mulatto or Negro or Olive-Skinned..
> i don't
> > > >> > consider them proper nouns, they're not the peoples of nations.
> > >
> > > Nor are Jews or Muslims or Catholics or Quakers or Orientals or
> > > Westerners or Ivy Leaguers.
> >
> > Jews are members of a faith, Muslims are members of the Nation of Islam,
> > Catholics are again, members of a faith, as are Quakers. Orientals come
> > from The Orient, and i've not ever had occasion to capitalize "westerners"
> > and Ivy League is an organization, hence proper noun.
>
> The Nation of Islam is an American Black Muslim religio-political
> organization; Muslims (I notice my M-W capitalizes it - literally "one who
> surrenders (to God)) are not necessarily members, even U.S. Muslims. Your
> reasoning on Jews (adherents of Judaism) and Catholics (members of the
> (Roman) Catholic Church(es) is fine, but I wonder about Quakers: it's not
> derived from a proper noun for the Church - the religion of Quakers is not
> the Quaker Church, it's the Religious Society of Friends (sometimes,
> confusingly, in my opinion, just calling themselves Friends). To digress
> just slightly: I understand the Church of Jesus of Latter Day Saints does
> not want to be referred to as the "Mormon Church" anymore.
>
> If Orinetals come from the Orient, surely Westerners come from the West
is that the West of Texas?
heh.
> (you've never had occasion to describe inhabitants of Western Civilization?
> Amazing!), and surely both should be capitalized, or neither.
>
> > i capitalize negro when writing "Negro College Fund" but there is no
> place,
> > no faith, no organization to substantiate negro, on its own, to be
> > considered a proper noun (that i know of).
>
> There is, however, a *race* to "substantiate" Negro, Caucasian, and
> Mongoloid, and my dictionary agrees that these proper nouns for the various
> races should be capitalized.
Fowler disagrees; though my dictionary lists both negro and Negro.
>
> The nouns "black" and "white," on the other hand, are not capitalized. I
> tend to agree with Mr. Ross' argument for capitalizing them, when using them
> to mean a member of a race to distinquish between the race-term and the
> myriad other uses of the words, particularly the negative connotations of
> "black": black magic, unlucky black cats; white lies, white weddings.
>
> Can anyone refresh my memory about the story of the newspaper that
> supposedly mandated the use of "African-American" in place of "Black" and
> had a computer copy editor program indiscriminately change phrases like
> "black tie" to "African-American tie"? I want to say that it was a Chicago
> paper, but I really don't know.
>
> To wander a bit more: Why was "Negro" abandoned? Was it regarded as too
when was it abandoned?
> close to "nigger"? One of my grandmothers (both Southern ladies a
> generation or so removed from the War of Northern Aggression) was unable to
> quite say "Negro" - it always came out "Negra." The other grandmother
> occasionally lapsed back into "nigger" in usage the black attendents at the
> nursing home seemed to accept as not intentionally pejorative.
>
> -- Robert
thanks Robert,
Lynda
--
"squint your eyes and look closer
I'm not between you and your ambition
I am a poster girl with no poster
I am thirty-two flavors and then some
and I'm beyond your peripheral vision
so you might want to turn your head
cause someday you're going to get hungry
and eat most of the words you just said"
-Ani Difranco, 32 Flavours.
Lynda
Joe Fineman wrote:
>
> rho...@navegalia.com (Ross Howard) writes:
>
> > [1. There is another reason for capitalising "Black"; "black" the
> > colour and "Black" the ethnic group are used in as different
> > contexts as "mob" meaning disorganised rabble and "Mob" meaning
> > organised crime. Most editors find such distinctions useful to avoid
> > ambiguity.]
>
> IIRC, the capitalization of "Negro" first became widespread after the
> New York _Times_ took it up. According to the OED, that was in 1930,
> in response to preferences expressed by Negroes, and was meant to be
> respectful.
aha.
>
> Capitalizing "Black" presumably has the same purpose, and is also, as
> you point out, convenient, especially in countries such as the
> U.S. where the one-drop rule prevails and many Blacks are not very
> black. It does create a spurious contrast with "white", which is
> seldom capitalized and is not likely to conform. (When I see "White"
> I actually think of the obsolescent meaning "European right-winger",
> tho I have only seen that a couple of times in my life.) Maybe the
> best solution is to revert to "black" where the contrast would be
> glaring, e.g. in "black & white together".
>
> --- Joe Fineman j...@world.std.com
>
> ||: Failure teaches a valuable lesson: that we are liable to :||
> ||: fail again. :||
Thanks,
Tootsie
Lynda wrote in message
>meirm...@erols.com wrote:
>>Lynda wrote
>> >oh, i love this snobbery. it's so very amusing.
Wanting proper capitalization in sentences is not snobbery, especially
here. Your comment, however ("it's so very amusing") could come close in
some minds. Why the attitude? Do you just wish to be defiant? Or are you
unsure about which words should be capitalized? If the latter is the
case, references to online help are available just for the asking.
>> I was born poor, but my parents sacrificed, and I worked and
>> struggled, and now I too have capital letters.
>look, i'm posting to a ng, not preparing an essay.
Two of the three newsgroups are concerned with how we use and write the
English language. Those of us who are AUEers or AEUers are going to
notice and comment on the lack of capitalization where it is customarily
used. And when in Rome...
>i would honestly like to discuss this issue, but it seems that you
attribute
>too much to first appearances.
And second, third, and so on...
If you "would honestly like to discuss this issue" (Negro/negro), then
it would serve you well to do so in a manner that does not distract from
the points you wish to make.
>thanks anyway.
You're welcome. I (and others, I think) request only that you try to put
your views into easily readable form. The use of lower case for every
word in a sentence gets tiresome and trite.
Tootsie
Lynda
Tootsie wrote:
>
> Lynda wrote in message
> >meirm...@erols.com wrote:
> >>Lynda wrote
>
> >> >oh, i love this snobbery. it's so very amusing.
>
> Wanting proper capitalization in sentences is not snobbery, especially
> here. Your comment, however ("it's so very amusing") could come close in
> some minds. Why the attitude? Do you just wish to be defiant? Or are you
> unsure about which words should be capitalized? If the latter is the
> case, references to online help are available just for the asking.
i write reports for a living. i am not now earning my living, i'm
discussing. for me, the difference is in formality, i couldn't be bothered
to type to form in informal discussion (which this is).
i'd rather not feel like i was at work while enjoying my leisure time. i'm
sorry if it disturbs you, but i didn't realize i had to kiss y'alls rings to
ask a question.
i posted to aapc and to aeu (where i've been reading and posting regularly
for months now [without capital letters -- and no-one made mention]) the
post was further cross-posted to aue, by the esteemed gentleman (whose post
you've snipped) to whom i was responding.
>
> >> I was born poor, but my parents sacrificed, and I worked and
> >> struggled, and now I too have capital letters.
>
> >look, i'm posting to a ng, not preparing an essay.
>
> Two of the three newsgroups are concerned with how we use and write the
> English language. Those of us who are AUEers or AEUers are going to
> notice and comment on the lack of capitalization where it is customarily
> used. And when in Rome...
yeah, and you *must* do it in a derogatory way, else you'd have no fun at
all.
>
> >i would honestly like to discuss this issue, but it seems that you
> attribute
> >too much to first appearances.
>
> And second, third, and so on...
it must piss you off that i'm not illiterate too.
>
> If you "would honestly like to discuss this issue" (Negro/negro), then
> it would serve you well to do so in a manner that does not distract from
> the points you wish to make.
>
> >thanks anyway.
>
> You're welcome. I (and others, I think) request only that you try to put
> your views into easily readable form. The use of lower case for every
> word in a sentence gets tiresome and trite.
this conversation has become tiresome and trite, Tootsie.
>
> Tootsie
JB
> > >> [1. There is another reason for capitalising "Black"; "black" the
> > >> colour and "Black" the ethnic group are used in as different contexts
> > >> as "mob" meaning disorganised rabble and "Mob" meaning organised
> > >> crime. Most editors find such distinctions useful to avoid ambiguity.]
> > >
> > >I assume you similarly capitalize White.
> >
> > I don't have much occasion to use it when listing minority groups. Do
> > you?
>
> Last I checked, minority group status did not determine capitalization
> status.
>
> You have not answered the question: In view of your announced
> predilection for capitalizing 'black' as an ethnic identifier, do you
> similarly capitalize 'white' or 'yellow', or 'red' in similar
> contexts?
Still no answer from M. Howard. --JB
Bill McCray
>Born west of
>Pittsburgh Pa. 10 years
>Indianapolis, 7 years
>Chicago, 6 years
>Brooklyn NY 12 years
>Baltimore 17 years
I'm surprised your mother survived such a long labor (including
significant travel). Where was she when it was finally over?
Bill McCray
Lexington, KY
meirm...@erols.com
Lewis" <rle...@brazosport.cc.tx.us> posted:
>To wander a bit more: Why was "Negro" abandoned?
It was abandoned in the early 70's iirc, for Lynda.
The discussion probably started much earlier, and certainly had by the
second half of the 60's.
> Was it regarded as too
>close to "nigger"?
That may have been part of it, if not directly, indirectly. The
discussion among Blacks went on for a long time, 5 or 10 years that I
know of, and I didn't even read everything I had the opportunity to
read. It was certainly discussed publicly. As I recall, the complaint
was that they wanted to pick their own word. African-American and
Afro-American were in the running then too. I was rooting for black
or Black because it is short and easy, but then, I don't have a big
stake in the matter. So I only rooted, I didn't vote.
But most Blacks, I think, also saw that as a problem, and I think that
is a big reason Black won. (Also in the running were Afram and I
think a couple others.). But it probably only got a plurality and a
lot of people thought they should find something better.
This reminds me of the question of what to call someone from the USA.
All the choices have something wrong with them.
> One of my grandmothers (both Southern ladies a
>generation or so removed from the War of Northern Aggression) was unable to
>quite say "Negro" - it always came out "Negra."
After the Voting Right Law was passed, especially, a lot of people
however made a point, I'm told, never to pronounce Negro clearly. It
wasn't just votes, I think. There certainly came a time when nigger
wasn't acceptable even to all but a few whites.
> The other grandmother
>occasionally lapsed back into "nigger" in usage the black attendents at the
>nursing home seemed to accept as not intentionally pejorative.
Especially I guess since she didn't use it all the time, and I guess
she was old. You phrased it just right.
>-- Robert
meirm...@erols.com
<Tin...@MailAndNews.com> posted:
>>===== Original Message From mei...@erols.com =====
>>In alt.english.usage on Mon, 26 Feb 2001 22:59:44 GMT Lynda
>><lsp...@hotmail.com> posted:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Ross Howard wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, 26 Feb 2001 03:55:47 GMT, somebody [impossible to figure out
>>>> from the backwards-quoted stuff I've snipped] wrote:
>>>>
>>>> >> > i don't write Black or White or Mulatto or Negro or Olive-Skinned.. i
>don't
>>>> >> > consider them proper nouns, they're not the peoples of nations.
>>>>
>>>> Nor are Jews or Muslims or Catholics or Quakers or Orientals or
>>>> Westerners or Ivy Leaguers.
>>>
>>>Jews are members of a faith, Muslims are members of the Nation of Islam,
>>>Catholics are again, members of a faith, as are Quakers. Orientals come
>>>from The Orient, and i've not ever had occasion to capitalize "westerners"
>>>and Ivy League is an organization, hence proper noun.
>>>
>>>i capitalize negro when writing "Negro College Fund" but there is no place,
>>>no faith, no organization to substantiate negro, on its own, to be
>>>considered a proper noun (that i know of).
>>>
>>Nonetheless, there are more than those three bases for capitalization.
>>Given your practices, it *is* hard to take you seriously. It's sort
>>of like someone who wears cutoffs and t-shirts critiqueing (sp?)
>>high-fashion.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> And I wouldn't pay much attention on capitalisation conventions to
>>>> someone who doesn't even capitalise the first word of a sentence. Must
>>>> be one of them poets.
>>>
>>>oh, i love this snobbery. it's so very amusing.
>>>
>>I was born poor, but my parents sacrificed, and I worked and
>>struggled, and now I too have capital letters.
>>
>
>who let the pedants out? Woof! Woof woof woof!
Actually I don't mind that she doesn't use capital letters. But this
is a thread about capital letters, and she is obviously prejudiced on
the subject. Expecting there to be a place, nation, or organization
as a basis for capitalization just confirms that.
Then she accuses others of snobbery. I don't know who if any of the
rich and famous, etc. are snobs, but I can't imagine anyone basing
snobbery on the possession of capital letters, or anyone else thinking
so.
Actually my family had capital letters even when I was a baby. I
think I had special baby or kids' books with nothing but capital
letters!
>Andrew
>
>------------------------------------------------------------
>"Some of my worst wounds
>have healed into poems
>a few well-placed
>stabs in the back
>have released a singing
>trapped between my shoulders" - Lorna Goodsion
meirm...@erols.com
<job...@carolina.rr.comTRIMTHISPART> posted:
American Blacks have chosen Black as the or at least a name for
themselves. None of your other groups have done something similar.
meirm...@erols.com
BillM...@mindspring.com (Bill McCray) posted:
West of Pittsburgh. It was a cyclical thing.
>
>Bill McCray
>Lexington, KY
Tootsie
Lynda wrote in message
>
>Tootsie wrote:
[snip all]
>this conversation has become tiresome and trite, Tootsie.
We agree on something, then.
Tootsie
Lynda
just so that we're clear - the snobbery comment was in reaction to this
statement "And I wouldn't pay much attention on capitalisation conventions
to someone who doesn't even capitalise the first word of a sentence. *Must
be one of them poets."
* emphasis mine.
Lynda
>
> >Andrew
> >
> >------------------------------------------------------------
> >"Some of my worst wounds
> >have healed into poems
> >a few well-placed
> >stabs in the back
> >have released a singing
> >trapped between my shoulders" - Lorna Goodsion
>
> Born west of
> Pittsburgh Pa. 10 years
> Indianapolis, 7 years
> Chicago, 6 years
> Brooklyn NY 12 years
> Baltimore 17 years
--
Peter J Ross
news:97hght$6ac$1...@slb4.atl.mindspring.net...
>
> Lynda wrote in message
>
> >look, i'm posting to a ng, not preparing an essay.
>
> Two of the three newsgroups are concerned with how we use and write the
> English language.
No newsgroup is more interested in such questions than
alt.arts.poetry.comments.
> Those of us who are AUEers or AEUers are going to
> notice and comment on the lack of capitalization where it is customarily
> used. And when in Rome...
The existing aapc thread was cross-posted in order to open the debate to
other newsgroups, the participants of which might have something to add to
our discussion of "Negro" v. "negro" in *formal writing*.
The issue of capitalisation in *newsgroup posts* is a side-issue.
PJR
--
"Readers may be divided into four classes:
1. Sponges, who absorb all they read, and return it nearly in the same
state, only a little dirtied.
2. Sand-glasses, who retain nothing, and are content to get through a
book for the sake of getting through the time.
3. Strain-bags, who retain merely the dregs of what they read.
4. Mogul-diamonds, equally rare and valuable, who profit from what they
read, and enable others to profit by it also."
S T Coleridge
Tiniap
<snip>
>>>> And I wouldn't pay much attention on capitalisation conventions to
>>>> someone who doesn't even capitalise the first word of a sentence. Must
>>>> be one of them poets.
>>>
>>>oh, i love this snobbery. it's so very amusing.
>>>
>>>I was born poor, but my parents sacrificed, and I worked and
>>>struggled, and now I too have capital letters.
>>>
>>
>>who let the pedants out? Woof! Woof woof woof!
>
>Actually I don't mind that she doesn't use capital letters. But this
>is a thread about capital letters, and she is obviously prejudiced on
>the subject. Expecting there to be a place, nation, or organization
>as a basis for capitalization just confirms that.
>
>Then she accuses others of snobbery.
if you do not see where the original poster, ross howard, was indeed showing
snobbery, then you have comprehension problems.
I don't know who if any of the
>rich and famous, etc. are snobs, but I can't imagine anyone basing
>snobbery on the possession of capital letters, or anyone else thinking
>so.
are you a part of some society protecting the rights of capital letters? do
you think they are people too? damn right sister! march on! you shall
overCome!
>
>Actually my family had capital letters even when I was a baby. I
>think I had special baby or kids' books with nothing but capital
>letters!
ooh. that's when the world had values. and we believed in god and his
heavenly
host of capital letter A's.
>
Yes Lynda..it was you who started this cross-posting. Shame on you!
Sly
She must be in a lot of pain.
Simon R. Hughes
>
> Lynda wrote in message
[...]
> >look, i'm posting to a ng, not preparing an essay.
>
>
> Two of the three newsgroups are concerned with how we use and write the
> English language. Those of us who are AUEers or AEUers are going to
> notice and comment on the lack of capitalization where it is customarily
> used. And when in Rome...
Aha! *That's* where "here" is.
[...]
> >thanks anyway.
>
> You're welcome. I (and others, I think) request only that you try to put
> your views into easily readable form. The use of lower case for every
> word in a sentence gets tiresome and trite.
I have seen the word "trite" overused in the past few days. Let's get
the imagination moving, folks.
--
Simon R. Hughes -- http://www.geocities.com/a57998/subconscious/
<!-- Married men live longer than single men,
but married men are a lot more willing to die. -->
Brian J Goggin
wrote:
>i write reports for a living. i am not now earning my living, i'm
>discussing. for me, the difference is in formality, i couldn't be bothered
>to type to form in informal discussion (which this is).
I couldn't be bothered to read stuff without initial capitals.
Goodbye.
bjg
Ross Howard
<job...@carolina.rr.comTRIMTHISPART> wrote:
>Still no answer from M. Howard. --JB
See my response to Joe Fineman's post (below this, if your
newsreader's threading properly).
Ross Howard
Ross Howard
wrote:
>i write reports for a living. i am not now earning my living, i'm
>discussing. for me, the difference is in formality, i couldn't be bothered
>to type to form in informal discussion (which this is).
>
>i'd rather not feel like i was at work while enjoying my leisure time. i'm
>sorry if it disturbs you, but i didn't realize i had to kiss y'alls rings to
>ask a question.
>
>i posted to aapc and to aeu (where i've been reading and posting regularly
>for months now [without capital letters -- and no-one made mention]) the
>post was further cross-posted to aue, by the esteemed gentleman (whose post
>you've snipped) to whom i was responding.
You say you don't want to feel like you're at work by having to hit
the shift key now and again, yet you fill your postings with bracketed
comments instead of the look-no-shift double hyphen as m-dash.
Gotcha!
Tip: If you really don't want to feel as if you were at work when
posting to Usenet, you might try losing the that "to whom i [sic] was
responding" business.
As for my cross-posting, I clearly said why I was doing it. Read it
back. Turns out I was right, wasn't I [winky for AEU and them poets].
Ross Howard
Ross Howard
wrote:
Ouch! Emphasis felt.
Self-esteem a little low recently? Being an amateur poet causing you
suffering on a scale that makes poor lickle Billy Elliot's pale in
comparison?
Thank you for proving my long-held conviction that modern poetry is
prose written by people who can't punctuate.
(Hell, woman, you can't even write the name of every amateur poet's
post-Patti Smith pinup Ani DiFranco properly in your sig.)
Ross Howard
Tootsie
Simon R. Hughes wrote in message ...
>Thus Spake Tootsie:
>> Lynda wrote in message
>
>[...]
>> >look, i'm posting to a ng, not preparing an essay.
>> Two of the three newsgroups are concerned with how we use and write
the
>> English language. Those of us who are AUEers or AEUers are going to
>> notice and comment on the lack of capitalization where it is
customarily
>> used. And when in Rome...
>Aha! *That's* where "here" is.
>[...]
>> >thanks anyway.
>> You're welcome. I (and others, I think) request only that you try to
put
>> your views into easily readable form. The use of lower case for every
>> word in a sentence gets tiresome and trite.
>I have seen the word "trite" overused in the past few days. Let's get
>the imagination moving, folks.
Give me a break, Simon. I have been gone for the past few days. (You
didn't notice? How unnerving!) I posted nothing from the 23rd until the
27th. And I *still* haven't read all the posts that came in while I was
gone.
So how was I to know that "trite" was the Overused Word of the Weekend?
How was I to know that I should think in terms of "boring,"
"commonplace," "everyday," "unoriginal," "yawn-inducing," "hackneyed,"
"stale," "worn out," "used up," "overused" (never mind that one; you
just used it), "dull," "colorless," "unexciting," "burned out,"
"corny"(?)," "lacking in vigor," "lifeless," "eye-glazing," and plain,
old "uninteresting"?
But you're right, of course. Any of these alternatives would have been
preferable to a trite "trite." The best choice, though, when referring
to what I was referring to, might have been "shiftless." Not quite the
same as "trite," but with a little sentence restructuring, on-target
nonetheless.
Tootsie
meirm...@erols.com
check...@earthlink.net (Sly) posted:
>I've heard that about every 5 seconds, a woman in this country gives birth.
>
>She must be in a lot of pain.
For sure.
That brings up a question I was going to write about anyhow. Saw
"Paradise" on tv last night with Don Johnson and Melanie Griffith.
Another character used 'curse' to describe someone woman's period. I
can see how it might earn the sobriquet on its own, but I wonder if it
might also have something to do with the curse against Eve that she
would have pain during child bearing. Now of course it's totally
different, but people have gotten confused before. Any ideas?
Hiho Sliver
said:
In my opinion, your array of alternatives -- imposing though it be --
doesn't include some of the ones that I would use to characterize
deliberately unconventional style, such as "affected," "obtrusive,"
and "sophomoric."
Lynda
shut up, troll.
<*plonk*>
L.
Kenny Chaffin
says...
hmmmm, new email address Lynda?
KAC
--
Kenny A. Chaffin
KAC Website Design - http://www.kacweb.com
Poetry Page: http://www.kacweb.com/poems/poetryindex.html
Ross Howard
wrote:
>shut up, troll.
>
><*plonk*>
Wow, look at all that < and *! -- so you did have a shift key all
along, you little tinker!
Oh, well. It was lovely while it lasted.
[snip pop lyric]
>-Ani Difranco, 32 Flavours.
Note: It was the internally capped Ani DiFranco who wrote the u-less
song song "32 Flavors" that you quote in your sig (with caps no less
-- aw, Lynda, that's so *sweet*; we knew you could do it if you really
try!)
Ross Howard
Simon R. Hughes
>
> Simon R. Hughes wrote in message ...
> >Thus Spake Tootsie:
> >> Lynda wrote in message
[...]
> >I have seen the word "trite" overused in the past few days. Let's get
> >the imagination moving, folks.
>
> Give me a break, Simon. I have been gone for the past few days. (You
> didn't notice? How unnerving!)
The truth is that I find it difficult to distinguish you from Donna.
If one or the other of you disappears for a few days, it takes a day
or two before I notice that one of you has gone, and another day or
two before I can discern which.
Simon R. Hughes
Ross, does using question marks make you feel as if you are at work?
Ross Howard
<shu...@tromso.online.no> wrote:
>Ross, does using question marks make you feel as if you are at work?
No, just uncomfortably Australian?
Ross Howard
Daimon
"Lynda" <lsp...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3A9AE0CF...@hotmail.com...
>
>
> Ross Howard wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, 26 Feb 2001 18:30:38 GMT, JB
> > <job...@carolina.rr.comTRIMTHISPART> wrote:
> <snip>
> > >
> > >I assume you similarly capitalize White.
> >
> > I don't have much occasion to use it when listing minority groups. Do
> > you?
>
> 'white', 'black', 'men', 'women' when listing divisions of humanity?
> Whether those lists are of "minorities" or not, is irrelevant.
>
It is convention, also, to capitalize Caucasian.
Daimon
> Lynda
>
> --
> "if you don't like my fire,
> then don't come around;
> cause I'm gonna burn one down.
> yes I'm gonna burn one down."
>
> Ben Harper (Burn One Down)
Robert E. Lewis
Ross Howard <rho...@navegalia.com> wrote in message
news:3a9d4284...@news.navegalia.com...
Or as if you are practicing to appear on *Jeopardy*?
JB
>
> <job...@carolina.rr.comTRIMTHISPART> wrote:
>
> >Still no answer from M. Howard. --JB
>
> See my response to Joe Fineman's post (below this, if your
> newsreader's threading properly).
There are no posts from or to Joe Fineman on AEU. --JB
Robert Lieblich
>
> I've heard that about every 5 seconds, a woman in this country gives birth.
>
> She must be in a lot of pain.
Might this be related to the remark attributed to Mark Twain, same
setup line, following which he supposedly said "We must find that
woman and stop her"?
Charles Riggs
<shu...@tromso.online.no> wrote:
>Thus Spake Tootsie:
>>
>> Simon R. Hughes wrote in message ...
>> >Thus Spake Tootsie:
>> >> Lynda wrote in message
>
>[...]
>
>> >I have seen the word "trite" overused in the past few days. Let's get
>> >the imagination moving, folks.
>>
>> Give me a break, Simon. I have been gone for the past few days. (You
>> didn't notice? How unnerving!)
>
>The truth is that I find it difficult to distinguish you from Donna.
>If one or the other of you disappears for a few days, it takes a day
>or two before I notice that one of you has gone, and another day or
>two before I can discern which.
Good one, Simon.
Charles Riggs
Tootsie
Charles Riggs wrote in message
>Simon R. Hughes wrote:
>>Thus Spake Tootsie:
>>> Simon R. Hughes wrote in message ...
>>> >I have seen the word "trite" overused in the past few days. Let's
get
>>> >the imagination moving, folks.
>>> Give me a break, Simon. I have been gone for the past few days. (You
>>> didn't notice? How unnerving!)
>>The truth is that I find it difficult to distinguish you from Donna.
>>If one or the other of you disappears for a few days, it takes a day
>>or two before I notice that one of you has gone, and another day or
>>two before I can discern which.
>Good one, Simon.
Maybe to you. To me, it's very ego-deflating to be confused with someone
else. I'll bet Donna feels the same. We are separate individuals.
And Simon, Donna is spelled D-O-N-N-A. Tootsie is T-O-O-T-S-I-E.
Donna's usually on-topic and helpful. I'm not. Donna does FAQs. I don't.
Need any more hints?
Tootsie.
Sly
<3A9D9916...@erols.com>:
I knew it was a joke that's been circulating for a good deal of time, but I
was unaware that Mr. Clemens first thought of it. Thank you.
Ross Howard
That's because, as I suggested would probably happen when I started
cross-posting this thread to AUE, most of the people who actually
answered the capital-shackle-free poetess's question -- digressions
included, but we got there in the end -- were AUE-ers.
Do a search on "Fineman Negro" at groups.google.com and you should
find the thread, including my response to Joe.
Ross Howard
meirm...@erols.com
check...@earthlink.net (Sly) posted:
If you guys are ever in Hartford or West Hartford Connecticut, his
unusual home is open to the public. He lived next door to Harriet
Beecher Stowe, whose home is open also.
Peter Moylan
>i write reports for a living. i am not now earning my living, i'm
>discussing. for me, the difference is in formality, i couldn't be bothered
>to type to form in informal discussion (which this is).
I understand what you're saying. Since I'm relaxing now, I can't be
bothered to read badly-written postings.
Goodbye.
--
Peter Moylan pe...@ee.newcastle.edu.au
http://eepjm.newcastle.edu.au
Simon R. Hughes
>
> Charles Riggs wrote in message
> >Simon R. Hughes wrote:
> >>Thus Spake Tootsie:
> >>> Simon R. Hughes wrote in message ...
>
> >>> >I have seen the word "trite" overused in the past few days. Let's
> get
> >>> >the imagination moving, folks.
>
> >>> Give me a break, Simon. I have been gone for the past few days. (You
> >>> didn't notice? How unnerving!)
>
> >>The truth is that I find it difficult to distinguish you from Donna.
> >>If one or the other of you disappears for a few days, it takes a day
> >>or two before I notice that one of you has gone, and another day or
> >>two before I can discern which.
>
> >Good one, Simon.
>
> Maybe to you. To me, it's very ego-deflating to be confused with someone
> else. I'll bet Donna feels the same. We are separate individuals.
Given the definition of "ego", I would have thought that both yours
and Donna's should be inflated rather than deflated, but the latest
thing is "less is more", so perhaps the converse is also true.
> And Simon, Donna is spelled D-O-N-N-A. Tootsie is T-O-O-T-S-I-E.
> Donna's usually on-topic and helpful. I'm not. Donna does FAQs. I don't.
> Need any more hints?
I think I have it.
Donna -- bad.
Tootsie -- wicked.
Ralph Jones
>
> American Blacks have chosen Black as the or at least a name for
> themselves. None of your other groups have done something similar.
>
Who was it then who chose "White" for whites?
Who were these "American Blacks" who chose "black"? Was it a majority
decision? What qualifications were required for voters?
--
Majority score
Scalia trumps the voters
Bush wins five to four.
- rmj http://www.hal-pc.org/~rmjones
j r sherman
>Lynda wrote:
>
>>i write reports for a living. i am not now earning my living, i'm
>>discussing. for me, the difference is in formality, i couldn't be bothered
>>to type to form in informal discussion (which this is).
>
>I understand what you're saying. Since I'm relaxing now, I can't be
>bothered to read badly-written postings.
good for you, pete! see, that's how this all usenet stuff works. you can do
whatever you want! don't want to read something? then don't. want to respond? do
so. want to call the other person names? go ahead. it's jsut wonderful that way!
>Goodbye.
see how easy that was?
glad we had this time to talk!
most sincerely,
j r sherman
Lynda
j r sherman wrote:
>
> in another time, another place, someone did say.....
> >
> >Lynda wrote:
> >
> >>i write reports for a living. i am not now earning my living, i'm
> >>discussing. for me, the difference is in formality, i couldn't be bothered
> >>to type to form in informal discussion (which this is).
> >
> >I understand what you're saying. Since I'm relaxing now, I can't be
> >bothered to read badly-written postings.
>
> good for you, pete! see, that's how this all usenet stuff works. you can do
> whatever you want! don't want to read something? then don't. want to respond? do
> so. want to call the other person names? go ahead. it's jsut wonderful that way!
i dunno how he managed to respond so on-topic, you know, since he didn't
read my post. maybe he's just the kinda lucky guy that shoots double
twenties with his eyes shut.
<*snick*>
>
> >Goodbye.
>
> see how easy that was?
or maybe he was peeking.
>
> glad we had this time to talk!
>
> most sincerely,
hiya jr :)
>
> j r sherman
Lynda
"Robert E. Lewis" wrote:
<bigasssnip>
> To wander a bit more: Why was "Negro" abandoned? Was it regarded as too
> close to "nigger"? One of my grandmothers (both Southern ladies a
> generation or so removed from the War of Northern Aggression) was unable to
> quite say "Negro" - it always came out "Negra." The other grandmother
> occasionally lapsed back into "nigger" in usage the black attendents at the
> nursing home seemed to accept as not intentionally pejorative.
i wonder, just because i do that...
why did you not capitalize "nigger" in your post?
you were consistent all the way through; until 'nigger'. does nigger then,
not describe a *race*?
these are meanderings, or maunderings; depending on your perspective.
>
> -- Robert
really just wondering.
thanks for your conclusive reply,
Alec "Skitt" P.
"Lynda" <omg_she...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3A9F0A32...@hotmail.com...
>
>
> "Robert E. Lewis" wrote:
> <bigasssnip>
>
> > To wander a bit more: Why was "Negro" abandoned? Was it regarded as
too
> > close to "nigger"? One of my grandmothers (both Southern ladies a
> > generation or so removed from the War of Northern Aggression) was unable
to
> > quite say "Negro" - it always came out "Negra." The other grandmother
> > occasionally lapsed back into "nigger" in usage the black attendents at
the
> > nursing home seemed to accept as not intentionally pejorative.
>
> i wonder, just because i do that...
>
> why did you not capitalize "nigger" in your post?
Check a dictionary.
--
Skitt (in SF Bay Area) http://i.am/skitt/
I speak English well -- I learn it from a book!
-- Manuel of "Fawlty Towers" (he's from Barcelona).
Lynda
"Alec \"Skitt\" P." wrote:
>
> "Lynda" <omg_she...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:3A9F0A32...@hotmail.com...
> >
> >
> > "Robert E. Lewis" wrote:
> > <bigasssnip>
> >
> > > To wander a bit more: Why was "Negro" abandoned? Was it regarded as
> too
> > > close to "nigger"? One of my grandmothers (both Southern ladies a
> > > generation or so removed from the War of Northern Aggression) was unable
> to
> > > quite say "Negro" - it always came out "Negra." The other grandmother
> > > occasionally lapsed back into "nigger" in usage the black attendents at
> the
> > > nursing home seemed to accept as not intentionally pejorative.
> >
> > i wonder, just because i do that...
> >
> > why did you not capitalize "nigger" in your post?
>
> Check a dictionary.
i have.
it meets the requirements for "negro" being capitalized, but the guy who
most clearly made the argument without tangentical emphasis (oog) didn't
capitalize it.
http://www.bartleby.com/61/11/N0101100.html
thass all.
Lynda
> --
> Skitt (in SF Bay Area) http://i.am/skitt/
> I speak English well -- I learn it from a book!
> -- Manuel of "Fawlty Towers" (he's from Barcelona).
j r sherman
>To wander a bit more: Why was "Negro" abandoned? Was it regarded as too
>close to "nigger"? One of my grandmothers (both Southern ladies a
>generation or so removed from the War of Northern Aggression)
War of Northern Aggression?
what the hell is that?
more like War of Illegal Southern Secession.
War to End Slavery
or to be more precise, The American Civil War.
in my family we like to refer to it as The War To Rightfully Kick The Shit Out
Of Traitors.
most sincerely,
j r "The Union forever, hurrah! boys, hurrah! Down with the traitors, up with
the stars. While we rally round the flag, boys, rally once again, shouting the
battle cry of Freedom!" sherman
Robert E. Lewis
> <bigasssnip>
>
> > To wander a bit more: Why was "Negro" abandoned? Was it regarded as
too
> > close to "nigger"? One of my grandmothers (both Southern ladies a
> > generation or so removed from the War of Northern Aggression) was unable
to
> > quite say "Negro" - it always came out "Negra." The other grandmother
> > occasionally lapsed back into "nigger" in usage the black attendents at
the
> > nursing home seemed to accept as not intentionally pejorative.
>
> i wonder, just because i do that...
>
> why did you not capitalize "nigger" in your post?
>
> you were consistent all the way through; until 'nigger'. does nigger
then,
> not describe a *race*?
Actually, I've been reading a book this week ("A Time To Kill," by John
Grisham) that has the word used throughout, and it's always lowercase in the
book. That may have influenced my usage, though I don't think (if I had
much occasion to use such epithets) that I would capitalize pejorative
terms - nigger, kike, honky, spic, etc.. Somehow, they just don't qualify
as "proper" nouns, do they? Thoroughly improper nouns, I'd say.
Robert
Robert E. Lewis
j r sherman <jr...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:97n5b...@drn.newsguy.com...
Save your Dixie cups, the South shall rise again.
-- Robert
Lynda
> as "proper" nouns, do they? Thoroughly improper nouns, I'd say.'
quite, but it wasn't always so; as you pointed out yourself by exemplifying
the usage in older times.
it's just curious. it seems that the term was used at one time in the very
same way as Negro is currently; but was never given whatever seal of
capitalization standards that Negro was to achieve that elusive capital N.
>
> Robert
thanks again Robert, you've been a big help :)
cheers,
Lynda
Robert E. Lewis
I previously wrote in message news:97n9nl$l...@netaxs.com...
> Actually, I've been reading a book this week ("A Time To Kill," by John
> Grisham) that has the word used throughout, and it's always lowercase in
the
> book. That may have influenced my usage, though I don't think (if I had
> much occasion to use such epithets) that I would capitalize pejorative
> terms - nigger, kike, honky, spic, etc.. Somehow, they just don't qualify
> as "proper" nouns, do they? Thoroughly improper nouns, I'd say.
In the interest of accuracy, I should add that Grisham does not capitalize
"black" or "white" in the book, either. But he uses "nigger" in a different
way - "black" and "white" (I'm adopting his non-capitalized spelling in
describing his usage) are used to describe racial groups (a major concern in
the novel), while that usage of "nigger" shows up in places, in the
conversation of the characters (of both races) in the book, it's more used
as a generic pronoun, in place of "man," "woman," "child," etc.. This
usage, over and over throughout the book, does paint a backdrop to the book,
a sense that, in all the characters' minds, there are "people" and then
there are "niggers," and treating them differently is just a fact of life.
-- Robert
j r sherman
>
>
>j r sherman <jr...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>news:97n5b...@drn.newsguy.com...
>> in another time, another place, someone did say.....
>>
>> >To wander a bit more: Why was "Negro" abandoned? Was it regarded as too
>> >close to "nigger"? One of my grandmothers (both Southern ladies a
>> >generation or so removed from the War of Northern Aggression)
>>
>> War of Northern Aggression?
>>
>> what the hell is that?
>>
>> more like War of Illegal Southern Secession.
>>
>> War to End Slavery
>>
>> or to be more precise, The American Civil War.
>>
>>
>> in my family we like to refer to it as The War To Rightfully Kick The Shit
>Out
>> Of Traitors.
>>
>>
>>
>> most sincerely,
>>
>> j r "The Union forever, hurrah! boys, hurrah! Down with the traitors, up
>with
>> the stars. While we rally round the flag, boys, rally once again, shouting
>the
>> battle cry of Freedom!" sherman
>
>
>
>Save your Dixie cups, the South shall rise again.
ALL RIGHT! we get to burn it again!
apparently we didn't do a good enough job last time. and this time we have
nuclear bombs.
who's gonna miss Mobile? not me.
most sincerely,
j r "So we made a thoroughfare for Freedom and her train, sixty miles in
latitude, three hundred to the main; Treason fled before us, for resistance was
in vain, while we were marching through Georgia" sherman
>-- Robert
>
>
>
Charles Riggs
<sk...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>"Lynda" <omg_she...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:3A9F0A32...@hotmail.com...
>> why did you not capitalize "nigger" in your post?
>
>Check a dictionary.
By golly, you're right. I'd have thought that because "Negro" is
capitalized, so would be "nigger".
Charles Riggs
Charles Riggs
wrote:
>Lynda wrote:
>
>>i write reports for a living. i am not now earning my living, i'm
>>discussing. for me, the difference is in formality, i couldn't be bothered
>>to type to form in informal discussion (which this is).
>
>I understand what you're saying. Since I'm relaxing now, I can't be
>bothered to read badly-written postings.
>
>Goodbye.
Or as Anne Robinson would say "You *are* the weakest link. Goodbye".
Who is this twit, Lynda, anyway?
Charles Riggs
Charles Riggs
wrote:
>
>Charles Riggs wrote in message
>>Simon R. Hughes wrote:
>>>Thus Spake Tootsie:
>>>> Simon R. Hughes wrote in message ...
>
>>>> >I have seen the word "trite" overused in the past few days. Let's
>get
>>>> >the imagination moving, folks.
>
>>>> Give me a break, Simon. I have been gone for the past few days. (You
>>>> didn't notice? How unnerving!)
>
>>>The truth is that I find it difficult to distinguish you from Donna.
>>>If one or the other of you disappears for a few days, it takes a day
>>>or two before I notice that one of you has gone, and another day or
>>>two before I can discern which.
>
>>Good one, Simon.
>
>Maybe to you. To me, it's very ego-deflating to be confused with someone
>else. I'll bet Donna feels the same. We are separate individuals.
No man is an island.
What is it you have against Donna that you should find a comparison
with her to be so ego-deflating? If you truly don't want to be
confused with someone else, why not use your real name?
Charles Riggs
Charles Riggs
>in another time, another place, someone did say.....
>
>>To wander a bit more: Why was "Negro" abandoned? Was it regarded as too
>>close to "nigger"? One of my grandmothers (both Southern ladies a
>>generation or so removed from the War of Northern Aggression)
>
>War of Northern Aggression?
>
>what the hell is that?
>
>more like War of Illegal Southern Secession.
>
>War to End Slavery
>
>or to be more precise, The American Civil War.
>
>
>in my family we like to refer to it as The War To Rightfully Kick The Shit Out
>Of Traitors.
More correctly called The War That Should Never Have Been Fought. The
country was plenty large enough and was obviously diverse enough to be
logically split into two countries. The country never fully recovered
from the contention and harmful feelings that the war caused. Lincoln
was a stubborn ass.
Charles Riggs
Lynda
so may i ask you then if you think the lack of capitalization of 'black' for
the racial group is an error on the writer's part? or do you think since
'white' (when used to describe the racial group) is not capitalized, he was
trying to achieve uniformity there?
Robert E. Lewis
I suspect he was trying to achieve uniformity, but not quite the way you
suggest.
I think he was, technically, in error not to capitalize both "Black" and
"White" (as I have said earlier in this thread, and in much the way you are
technically incorrect in failing to following accepted forms for
capitalization).
I think the uniformity he was striving for has to do with the fact that
"nigger" *is* sometimes used in the book as the equivalent of "Black," and
sometimes it's not. That it's not capitalized in the other usage I've
already explained above, and I think it would be awkward and pretentious of
the author to switch back and forth between capitalized and non-capitalized
versions of the word, depending on its use - it would look like he was
hitting his readers over the head with the meaning in each use (imagine
things like, "That nigger went to the Nigger church..."). He had to pick a
spelling for "nigger" in the , and capitalizing it would have made it stand
out too much, especially given the way it pervades the book.
Perhaps, having chosen to remain lowercase in the use of the word even where
it means a race, Mr. Grisham or his editors chose to stick with that form
when using other words that describe races.
These are all just wild guesses, of course - I've not met Mr. Grisham, I
have not heard or read any comments from him about this book or the subject
of capitalization, and I haven't bothered to see if he's consistent in his
later books.
-- Robert
Robert E. Lewis
Charles Riggs <chr...@gofree.indigo.ie> wrote in message
news:usnu9tg86kirghvj3...@4ax.com...
But couldn't "The War That Should Never Have Been Fought" cause confusion
with many other wars that shouldn't have been fought? Most histories of the
First World War was a stupid mistake, and the notion that the subjugation of
South Vietnam by the Communist North shouldn't have met any opposition is
widespread these many years. I recall Churchill suggesting, early in the
Second World War, that it be named "The Unnecessary War" (in his history of
the war? I'm unsure of the source, just that it stuck in my mind).
-- Robert
I seem to recall that Churchill suggested, early in the Second World War,
that it
khann
>
> While marching to the sea, j r sherman wrote:
>
> >War of Northern Aggression?
> >
> >what the hell is that?
A very sad event, but the sort of behaviour one expects from an
imperialist power when confronted with opposition they are sure that
they can beat. The course of the war came as quite a surprise to these
people.
> >more like War of Illegal Southern Secession.
There was nothing whatsoever illegal about the secession. To say
otherwise is just victors' revisionism.
> >War to End Slavery
Hoo boy, you have been caught up in revisionist bullshit, haven't you.
> >or to be more precise, The American Civil War.
Not all that civil, was it! Cato would have understood the methods
involved.
> >in my family we like to refer to it as The War To Rightfully Kick The Shit Out
> >Of Traitors.
Or, in many other northern families, 'The War Wherein Daddy Hired
Offshore Help to Fight in Place of Junior', or 'The War to Ensure Cheap
Raw Materials for Yankee Mills', or 'The War to the End the States'
Rights Movement'.
> More correctly called The War That Should Never Have Been Fought. The
Right.
> country was plenty large enough and was obviously diverse enough to be
> logically split into two countries.
Right again.
> The country never fully recovered
> from the contention and harmful feelings that the war caused.
Right three times in a row.
> Lincoln was a stubborn ass.
Yes, he was, but he had great matters at stake which forced him to fight
the War of Northern Aggression against the South; Mary's overspending on
redecorating the White House, for instance.
KHann
Simon R. Hughes
Sorry, Charles: you can't use "golly" in the same posting as "Negro"
and "nigger".
j r sherman
i think he also refered to it as the Second 30 Years War, since he felt WWII was
just the second round of the WWI.
maybe we ought to fight wars like the WWF?
i think we already do.
j r sherman
>
>On 1 Mar 2001 19:51:17 -0800, j r sherman <jr...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>>in another time, another place, someone did say.....
>>
>>>To wander a bit more: Why was "Negro" abandoned? Was it regarded as too
>>>close to "nigger"? One of my grandmothers (both Southern ladies a
>>>generation or so removed from the War of Northern Aggression)
>>
>>War of Northern Aggression?
>>
>>what the hell is that?
>>
>>more like War of Illegal Southern Secession.
>>
>>War to End Slavery
>>
>>or to be more precise, The American Civil War.
>>
>>
>>in my family we like to refer to it as The War To Rightfully Kick The Shit Out
>>Of Traitors.
>
>More correctly called The War That Should Never Have Been Fought. The
>country was plenty large enough and was obviously diverse enough to be
>logically split into two countries.
sorry, you are painfully wrong. it takes an action by the US Congress, a legal
action, mind you, to enter the Union of the United States. therefore it required
a legal action to leave it. the Southern States attempt to leave the Union of
the United States was illegal. Since entering the US as a state is the domain
and responsibility of the Federal Government, leaving it is also the domain and
responsibility of the Federal Government. meaning, once you join the picnic, you
don't get to leave on your own. that's in the US Constitution.
it was Lincoln's sworn duty to protect and defend the Constitution, as well as
all citizens of the United States, even those in states that had seceded from
the Union. by an oath to all the people, and god as well(if you believe in god,
certainly Lincoln did, in his fashion), Lincoln had no choice but to wage war
against those in rebellion of the Federal Authority, and did so legally.
and to imply that the Northern and Southern sections were so culturally diverse
that such a breakup was a good thing is ridiculous. there was but one thing that
separated Northerners from Southerners: slavery. both sections spoke English,
both sections where predominately protestant Christian, both sections were well
immersed in the Jefferson/Hamilton American culture, of independence, self
reliance, and sound economic ideology. you found almost little to no difference
between a small town shopkeeper or rural farmer in Michigan as you would his
counterpart in Alabama.
but it was slavery that was the cause to the Civil War. not independence, not
State Rights, but slavery. the "right" of one person to keep another person in
bondage, and to base an entire economy on an immoral and backwards economic idea
is what caused the American Civil War.
the idea that the war was fought for States Rights is merely southern aristocrat
propaganda. only one in 35 southern men owned slaves. but few men would run in
front of a canon to protect the money and property of a few rich individuals, so
they created the "States Rights" mirage as the battle cry for southern soldiers.
no, the American Civil War was fought to correct the most shameful act of our
history, letting slavery flourish after the formation of the country.
>The country never fully recovered from the contention and harmful feelings >that
>the war caused.
such is the reality of Civil Wars. but by and large, except for a few terrorists
blowing up innocent woman and children in Federal buildings, and some people who
saw Gone With The Wind one too many times, most Americans don't think the Union
should be dissolved, ever. and thank god for that.
>Lincoln was a stubborn ass.
Lincoln created the first truly modern nation. he gave America the chance to be
the nation it has always dreamed wished it could be. it gave breathing space for
the ideals that Jefferson, Madison, Paine and many other American thinkers put
forth hoping to create a better world. it saved the evolution of democratic
republicanism that was born in our revolution and in the French revolution. the
American Civil War was the death knell of imperialism and the aristocracy. in
less than 90 years from the surrender at Appomattox self rule became the world
norm and ideal, and not the unattainable dream that it was before Lincoln.
no dreams would have been possible if the American Experiment had been a
failure, and it would have been a failure if the nation had allowed one section
to be free, and the other to allow slavery. Lincoln, by being a "stubborn ass",
as you say, kept alive the hope and chance for all people. he was ruthless, he
was grim, he was cruel in many ways, he was the most masterful politician in
American history, he was such a machiavellian that it would have made the De
Medicis proud, at times he used the slaves as a political tool to get what he
wanted, he limited the freedom of speech, he struck down habeas corpus, the very
cornerstone of common law, he willfully and forcefully sent 350,000 men to their
deaths, he circumvented the constitution ever chance he could.
but he saved the ideas for the future.
and for anyone to speak derisively of Lincoln and his greatness is painfully
ignorant. meaning: Charles, you don't know what you're talking about.
most sincerely,
j r sherman
>Charles Riggs
>
Alec "Skitt" P.
OK, here goes (from MWCD10):
Main Entry: Ne·gro
Main Entry: nig·ger
See that?
Alec "Skitt" P.
Only a minority of Negroes are niggers.
Lynda
yep. now check Fowler, smartass.
L.
> --
> Skitt (in SF Bay Area) http://i.am/skitt/
> I speak English well -- I learn it from a book!
> -- Manuel of "Fawlty Towers" (he's from Barcelona).
Lynda
"Alec \"Skitt\" P." wrote:
>
> "Charles Riggs" <chr...@gofree.indigo.ie> wrote in message
> news:c3nu9t4qlk82p420r...@4ax.com...
> > On Thu, 1 Mar 2001 18:59:56 -0800, "Alec \"Skitt\" P."
> > <sk...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >"Lynda" <omg_she...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > >news:3A9F0A32...@hotmail.com...
> >
> > >> why did you not capitalize "nigger" in your post?
> > >
> > >Check a dictionary.
> >
> > By golly, you're right. I'd have thought that because "Negro" is
> > capitalized, so would be "nigger".
>
> Only a minority of Negroes are niggers.
you don't say -- why's that?
Lynda.
> --
> Skitt (in SF Bay Area) http://i.am/skitt/
> I speak English well -- I learn it from a book!
> -- Manuel of "Fawlty Towers" (he's from Barcelona).
Alec "Skitt" P.
>
>
> "Alec \"Skitt\" P." wrote:
> >
> > "Charles Riggs" <chr...@gofree.indigo.ie> wrote in message
> > news:c3nu9t4qlk82p420r...@4ax.com...
> > > On Thu, 1 Mar 2001 18:59:56 -0800, "Alec \"Skitt\" P."
> > > <sk...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > >"Lynda" <omg_she...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > > >news:3A9F0A32...@hotmail.com...
> > >
> > > >> why did you not capitalize "nigger" in your post?
> > > >
> > > >Check a dictionary.
> > >
> > > By golly, you're right. I'd have thought that because "Negro" is
> > > capitalized, so would be "nigger".
> >
> > Only a minority of Negroes are niggers.
>
> you don't say -- why's that?
For the same reason that only a minority of whites are white trash.
Alec "Skitt" P.
What Fowler is that? The King's English? Show me a quote.
Lynda
yeah, but i'm writing a usenet post, not a novel.
>
> I think the uniformity he was striving for has to do with the fact that
> "nigger" *is* sometimes used in the book as the equivalent of "Black," and
> sometimes it's not. That it's not capitalized in the other usage I've
> already explained above, and I think it would be awkward and pretentious of
> the author to switch back and forth between capitalized and non-capitalized
> versions of the word, depending on its use - it would look like he was
> hitting his readers over the head with the meaning in each use (imagine
> things like, "That nigger went to the Nigger church..."). He had to pick a
> spelling for "nigger" in the , and capitalizing it would have made it stand
> out too much, especially given the way it pervades the book.
right, okay. so, do you think really that if one is using a term to
describe a race, that it would be correct in that case to capitalize it?
you see, i ask, because in your example here, you cap 'nigger' when it
refers to the race 'Negroid', but not when used to describe the particular
'Negroid'. or, conversely, do you think that the same rules should apply if
i were to replace 'nigger' with 'black' or 'negro'? as in:
..the negro went to the Negro church..
-or-
..the black went to the Black church..
also, do you think it's the negative connotations of 'nigger' that keep it
from having a capital N (my dictionaries don't give a proper noun definition
for nigger; but neither does Fowler for negro), or do you think that it's
because nigger and negro are not quite synonymous even though they once
might have been?
>
> Perhaps, having chosen to remain lowercase in the use of the word even where
> it means a race, Mr. Grisham or his editors chose to stick with that form
> when using other words that describe races.
that sounds about right.
>
> These are all just wild guesses, of course - I've not met Mr. Grisham, I
> have not heard or read any comments from him about this book or the subject
> of capitalization, and I haven't bothered to see if he's consistent in his
> later books.
well, that's okay, your guesses seem reasonable.
>
> -- Robert
cheers,
L.
Tootsie
Charles Riggs wrote in message ...
>Tootsie wrote:
>>Charles Riggs wrote in message
>>>Simon R. Hughes wrote:
>>>>The truth is that I find it difficult to distinguish you from Donna.
>>>>If one or the other of you disappears for a few days, it takes a day
>>>>or two before I notice that one of you has gone, and another day or
>>>>two before I can discern which.
>>>Good one, Simon.
>>Maybe to you. To me, it's very ego-deflating to be confused with
>>someone else. I'll bet Donna feels the same. We are separate
individuals.
>No man is an island.
>What is it you have against Donna that you should find a comparison
>with her to be so ego-deflating?
Mr. Riggs. <sigh> Please read what I wrote one more time. Twice if
necessary. If you still need help understanding what I said after that,
I will be glad to explain further. (I won't make *too* many comments
about paying attention.) And if you already *do* understand but are
practicing your skills at trouble-making, cut it out.
(Just for the record, I have nothing against Donna. Nor she against me,
I
would hope.)
>......If you truly don't want to be
>confused with someone else, why not use your real name?
We've been through this name business before. (And by the way, I don't
see you jumping on anyone else here who uses a nickname. Should I feel
special? Or targeted?)
Anyway, let us assume that I called myself "Maria" in aue instead of
"Tootsie." If Simon confuses the name "Tootsie" with any other name, he
could just as easily confuse the name "Maria" with any other name.
Perhaps more easily. But he isn't confusing *names*. He's confusing
*people*. (Or so he indicates.) Thus reverting to my real name would not
help.
You know, Charles, the more you harp on this name thing, the more I will
resist. You should have figured that out by now. And probably have,
which would mean that you really prefer "Tootsie" and don't want me to
change my name at all.
Hmmm...I need to think about that.
Tootsie.
Not anyone else.
Tootsie
Simon R. Hughes wrote in message ...
> Tootsie said
>> And Simon, Donna is spelled D-O-N-N-A. Tootsie is T-O-O-T-S-I-E.
>> Donna's usually on-topic and helpful. I'm not. Donna does FAQs. I
don't.
>> Need any more hints?
>I think I have it.
>
>Donna -- bad.
>Tootsie -- wicked.
Bad and wicked, wicked and bad...
Let's see. "Bad" is "good," right?
And "wicked" is "bad," right?
So that would mean Donna and I are both "good"... but it just takes me a
little longer to get there.
Okay. I can live with that.
Tootsie
Rich Lafferty
Tootsie <too...@sprynet.com> wrote:
>
> Bad and wicked, wicked and bad...
> Let's see. "Bad" is "good," right?
> And "wicked" is "bad," right?
>
> So that would mean Donna and I are both "good"... but it just takes me a
> little longer to get there.
You might be good, but Donna's best -- it says so right at the bottom
of her posts.
-Rich
--
Rich Lafferty ----------------------------------------
Nocturnal Aviation Division, IITS Computing Services
Concordia University, Montreal, QC
ri...@bofh.concordia.ca -------------------------------
Lynda
"Alec \"Skitt\" P." wrote:
>
> "Lynda" <omg_she...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:3AA01AC5...@hotmail.com...
> >
> >
> > "Alec \"Skitt\" P." wrote:
> > >
> > > "Charles Riggs" <chr...@gofree.indigo.ie> wrote in message
> > > news:c3nu9t4qlk82p420r...@4ax.com...
> > > > On Thu, 1 Mar 2001 18:59:56 -0800, "Alec \"Skitt\" P."
> > > > <sk...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >"Lynda" <omg_she...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > > > >news:3A9F0A32...@hotmail.com...
> > > >
> > > > >> why did you not capitalize "nigger" in your post?
> > > > >
> > > > >Check a dictionary.
> > > >
> > > > By golly, you're right. I'd have thought that because "Negro" is
> > > > capitalized, so would be "nigger".
> > >
> > > Only a minority of Negroes are niggers.
> >
> > you don't say -- why's that?
>
> For the same reason that only a minority of whites are white trash.
and does your dictionary tell you that?
L.
> --
> Skitt (in SF Bay Area) http://i.am/skitt/
> I speak English well -- I learn it from a book!
> -- Manuel of "Fawlty Towers" (he's from Barcelona).
Charles Riggs
>but it was slavery that was the cause to the Civil War. not independence, not
>State Rights, but slavery. the "right" of one person to keep another person in
>bondage, and to base an entire economy on an immoral and backwards economic idea
>is what caused the American Civil War.
This is the simplistic idea that some school children have for the
reason behind the Civil War. The question of slavery was only an
after-thought for Mr Lincoln and he signed the Emancipation
Proclamation because he feared he might lose the next election if he
didn't. Lincoln perpetuated the war in order to keep the union
together, whatever the cost in lives.
>the idea that the war was fought for States Rights is merely southern aristocrat
>propaganda. only one in 35 southern men owned slaves. but few men would run in
>front of a canon to protect the money and property of a few rich individuals, so
>they created the "States Rights" mirage as the battle cry for southern soldiers.
>
>no, the American Civil War was fought to correct the most shameful act of our
>history, letting slavery flourish after the formation of the country.
>
Far more shameful was brother killing brother and a total loss of a
million people. So unnecessary. The practice of northern carpet
baggers invading the South was shameful. The ruination of the South
was shameful. The way Blacks were treated for the one hundred years
following their so-called emancipation was shameful and who knows how
much better their situation would have been had they be freed in an
orderly and timely manner?
>no dreams would have been possible if the American Experiment had been a
>failure,
The entire world, Europe and Asia and all the rest, was guided by
America? Wow, I didn't realise all their hopes and dreams rested on
what one country did.
>and it would have been a failure if the nation had allowed one section
>to be free, and the other to allow slavery. Lincoln, by being a "stubborn ass",
>as you say, kept alive the hope and chance for all people. he was ruthless, he
>was grim, he was cruel in many ways, he was the most masterful politician in
>American history, he was such a machiavellian that it would have made the De
>Medicis proud, at times he used the slaves as a political tool to get what he
>wanted, he limited the freedom of speech, he struck down habeas corpus, the very
>cornerstone of common law, he willfully and forcefully sent 350,000 men to their
>deaths, he circumvented the constitution ever chance he could.
A pity it was that the man wasn't impeached before he caused all the
harm he did.
>but he saved the ideas for the future.
>
>and for anyone to speak derisively of Lincoln and his greatness is painfully
>ignorant.
The only thing great about Lincoln was his height.
I don't normally respond to posters who are so inconsiderate of their
readers that they don't bother with capitalization, but with your post
being as silly as it was, I made an exception.
Charles Riggs
Lynda
Charles Riggs wrote:
>
> On 2 Mar 2001 09:31:30 -0800, j r sherman <jr...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
<snip>
>
> I don't normally respond to posters who are so inconsiderate of their
> readers that they don't bother with capitalization, but with your post
> being as silly as it was, I made an exception.
WELL AIN'T THAT JUST SPECIAL!
>
> Charles Riggs
Alec "Skitt" P.
>
>
> "Alec \"Skitt\" P." wrote:
> >
> > "Lynda" <omg_she...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:3AA01AC5...@hotmail.com...
> > >
> > >
> > > "Alec \"Skitt\" P." wrote:
> > > >
> > > > "Charles Riggs" <chr...@gofree.indigo.ie> wrote in message
> > > > news:c3nu9t4qlk82p420r...@4ax.com...
> > > > > On Thu, 1 Mar 2001 18:59:56 -0800, "Alec \"Skitt\" P."
> > > > > <sk...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >"Lynda" <omg_she...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > > > > >news:3A9F0A32...@hotmail.com...
> > > > >
> > > > > >> why did you not capitalize "nigger" in your post?
> > > > > >
> > > > > >Check a dictionary.
> > > > >
> > > > > By golly, you're right. I'd have thought that because "Negro" is
> > > > > capitalized, so would be "nigger".
> > > >
> > > > Only a minority of Negroes are niggers.
> > >
> > > you don't say -- why's that?
> >
> > For the same reason that only a minority of whites are white trash.
>
> and does your dictionary tell you that?
Naah, I count them.
--
Skitt (in SF Bay Area) http://i.am/skitt/
Running the gov't is too important to let the people have a say in it.
-- Willie Brown?
meirm...@erols.com
<jr...@earthlink.net> posted:
>in another time, another place, someone did say.....
>
>>To wander a bit more: Why was "Negro" abandoned? Was it regarded as too
>>close to "nigger"? One of my grandmothers (both Southern ladies a
>>generation or so removed from the War of Northern Aggression)
>
>War of Northern Aggression?
>
>what the hell is that?
>
>more like War of Illegal Southern Secession.
>
>War to End Slavery
>
>or to be more precise, The American Civil War.
>
>
>in my family we like to refer to it as The War To Rightfully Kick The Shit Out
>Of Traitors.
I've lived in the North all my life. I'm glad the North won. But I
think governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers
from the consent of the governed, that whenever any form of government
become destructive of certain ends, it is the right of the people to
alter or abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its
foundation on such principles, and orgainizing its powers in such form
as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and
happiness.
And indeed the South only tried to escape from its rule. It made no
effort afaik to abolish the govt. as it pertained to the North.
Traitor is an incorrect word and rashly used.
>
>most sincerely,
>
>j r
Born west of
Pittsburgh Pa. 10 years
Indianapolis, 7 years
Chicago, 6 years
Brooklyn NY 12 years
Baltimore 17 years
meirm...@erols.com
Still off-topic but a lot of you will like this.
In alt.english.usage on Sat, 03 Mar 2001 08:21:40 +0000 Charles Riggs
<chr...@gofree.indigo.ie> posted:
>On 2 Mar 2001 09:31:30 -0800, j r sherman <jr...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>>sorry, you are painfully wrong. it takes an action by the US Congress, a legal
>>action, mind you, to enter the Union of the United States. therefore it required
>>a legal action to leave it.
Really. Is that an axiom? Or how do you know? What if one state
wants to leave and a majority of states won't agree?
>> the Southern States attempt to leave the Union of
>>the United States was illegal. Since entering the US as a state is the domain
>>and responsibility of the Federal Government, leaving it is also the domain and
>>responsibility of the Federal Government.
So since it takes the agreement of two people to get married, it
should require the agreement of both to get divorced. Since it
requires the agreement of all parties to enter into a business
partnership, then no one can leave unless all agree? After all, the
second implied premise of your syllogism above is that this a general
rule, but it's not.
> meaning, once you join the picnic, you
>>don't get to leave on your own. that's in the US Constitution.
Really. Give me a citation.
>
>>but it was slavery that was the cause to the Civil War. not independence, not
>>State Rights, but slavery. the "right" of one person to keep another person in
>>bondage, and to base an entire economy on an immoral and backwards economic idea
>>is what caused the American Civil War.
>
>This is the simplistic idea that some school children have for the
>reason behind the Civil War. The question of slavery was only an
>after-thought for Mr Lincoln
That is nonsense and total dribble. "Scholars agree that the origins
of the party grew out of the sectional conflicts regarding the
expansion of slavery into the new Western territories."
http://www.calpots.com/sp_exhibits/political_poster/foundg_repub_party.html
If slavery were kept out of the territories, then when one of them
became a state, the antislavery forces would have had control over
Senate as well as the House on that issue. So the choice would have
been to admit no new states, or see one barrier to slavery after
another put onto the South.
Formed only in 1854, by 1856 the Republicans were already the
principle anti-slavery party. The slogan of the John C. Fremont, their
candidate for President was "Free soil, free labor, free speech, free
men, Fremont." Get it?
Even two years before, 44 Republicans had been elected to the House
and several to the Senate in the prior 1854 midterm elections, amazing
for a new party, except that the Kansas-Nebraska act was a burning
issue throughout the North. There had been an arrangement that
slavery would be kept out of the new territories, but KNA provided for
admitting one as slave, the other as free. Opponents of slavery were
outraged.
In 1858, only four years after creation of the party, Republicans
gained control of the US House of REpresentatives. Abraham Lincoln,
after a long series of real debates with his opponent (not like we
have now) lost to Stephen Douglas for Senate from Illinois. Those
very debates were the basis for his victory as president two years
later.
Fear of interference in slavery where it already existed, the South,
all the way to Texas, was the major reason the South seceded.
>and he signed the Emancipation
>Proclamation because he feared he might lose the next election if he
>didn't.
You have no credible evidence that is the major reason. I would say
it was signed to give moral support to Northern troops.
> Lincoln perpetuated the war in order to keep the union
>together, whatever the cost in lives.
He didn't perpetuate the war at all or it would have continued
perperpetually. Do you mean he "waged" the war. Well duh. His goal
and the goal of the North was to keep the Union together from the
start to the finish.
>>the idea that the war was fought for States Rights is merely southern aristocrat
>>propaganda.*** only one in 35 southern men owned slaves. but few men would run in
>>front of a canon to protect the money and property of a few rich individuals, so
>>they created the "States Rights" mirage as the battle cry for southern soldiers.
***The statement that points to this footnote, even if based on facts,
is at least phrased inaccurately. If the Southern men fighting
believed they were fighting for States Rights, they they were,
regardless if that was not the goal of slaveholders, and regardless if
they had been fooled by the slaveholders. Especially since few, 1
out of 35 you say, men had slaves.
It's also worth noting that a lot of people who are supporting raising
the exemption or even abolishing the Estate Tax have not nearly enough
money to pay the tax and neither they nor their children ever will.
Either they delude themselves into thinking this will apply to
themselve (One survery around election time showed that 15% of the
population thinks it is in the top 1% of earners.) or they support it
even though they know it won't help them. It's hard to quantify but
I'm not convinced preserving slavery wasn't part of their motive, even
it didn't benefit them, if only because the North was against it.
AIUI, there are a lot of letters home by soldiers on both sides. A
letter can't prove what motives others didn't have, but it can show
what the writers thought their motives were.
>>no, the American Civil War was fought to correct the most shameful act of our
>>history, letting slavery flourish after the formation of the country.
>>
>Far more shameful was brother killing brother and a total loss of a
>million people. So unnecessary. The practice of northern carpet
>baggers invading the South was shameful. The ruination of the South
>was shameful. The way Blacks were treated for the one hundred years
>following their so-called emancipation was shameful and who knows how
>much better their situation would have been had they be freed in an
>orderly and timely manner?
If the South had stuck around, maybe that could have been worked out.
If they had been allowed to leave, we don't know when anyone would
have gotten freed.
>>no dreams would have been possible if the American Experiment had been a
>>failure,
>
>The entire world, Europe and Asia and all the rest, was guided by
>America? Wow, I didn't realise all their hopes and dreams rested on
>what one country did.
>
>>and it would have been a failure if the nation had allowed one section
>>to be free, and the other to allow slavery. Lincoln, by being a "stubborn ass",
>>as you say, kept alive the hope and chance for all people. he was ruthless, he
>>was grim, he was cruel in many ways, he was the most masterful politician in
>>American history, he was such a machiavellian that it would have made the De
>>Medicis proud, at times he used the slaves as a political tool to get what he
>>wanted, he limited the freedom of speech, he struck down habeas corpus, the very
>>cornerstone of common law,
He suspended habeus corpus, as the Constitution provides. Did you
know the Constitution provides for this?
I heard Gordon Liddy cite this, also not mentioning that the
constitution provides for it "in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion". The
putz compared this legal act to his own breaking into the Watergate.
> he willfully and forcefully sent 350,000 men to their
>>deaths, he circumvented the constitution ever chance he could.
Could you give an example.
Charles Riggs
I agree entirely. I'd add that the South tried to use peaceful means
to set up the new government and was thwarted by the North. Like you,
I'm a northerner and I'm glad the North won; I'm not so sure, though,
that maintaining the Union was worth the toll in lives and the
subsequent ill-will it caused between the two regions.
Charles Riggs
j r sherman
>
>
>
>>but it was slavery that was the cause to the Civil War. not independence, not
>>State Rights, but slavery. the "right" of one person to keep another person in
>>bondage, and to base an entire economy on an immoral and backwards economic idea
>>is what caused the American Civil War.
>
>This is the simplistic idea that some school children have for the
>reason behind the Civil War. The question of slavery was only an
>after-thought for Mr Lincoln and he signed the Emancipation
>Proclamation because he feared he might lose the next election if he
>didn't. Lincoln perpetuated the war in order to keep the union
>together, whatever the cost in lives.
this passage was answered much better in another post. i shall let those
commands be a response to this.
>>the idea that the war was fought for States Rights is merely southern aristocrat
>>propaganda. only one in 35 southern men owned slaves. but few men would run in
>>front of a canon to protect the money and property of a few rich individuals, so
>>they created the "States Rights" mirage as the battle cry for southern soldiers.
>>
>>no, the American Civil War was fought to correct the most shameful act of our
>>history, letting slavery flourish after the formation of the country.
>>
>Far more shameful was brother killing brother and a total loss of a
>million people.
it was only about 550,000 that were killed in the American Civil war.
>So unnecessary.
yes, but there were reasons for the war. you make it sound as if nothing
positive came out of it.
>The practice of northern carpet baggers invading the South was shameful.
not 1/10 as bad as Southern aristocrats keeping human beings in slavery.
>The ruination of the South was shameful.
they should have surrendered earlier.
>The way Blacks were treated for the one hundred years
>following their so-called emancipation was shameful and who knows how
>much better their situation would have been had they be freed in an
>orderly and timely manner?
um, if you ever get the chance, you might want to ask African Americans if they
feel the same way, that an orderly emanicipation would have been better for
them? instead of 1865, would 1904 or 1930 have been a better time to be freed
from slavery?
i think they might disagree with you on that.
>>no dreams would have been possible if the American Experiment had been a
>>failure,
>
>The entire world, Europe and Asia and all the rest, was guided by
>America? Wow, I didn't realise all their hopes and dreams rested on
>what one country did.
um, yes. are you denying that the history of the 20th century was not influenced
heavily by the United States?
>>and it would have been a failure if the nation had allowed one section
>>to be free, and the other to allow slavery. Lincoln, by being a "stubborn ass",
>>as you say, kept alive the hope and chance for all people. he was ruthless, he
>>was grim, he was cruel in many ways, he was the most masterful politician in
>>American history, he was such a machiavellian that it would have made the De
>>Medicis proud, at times he used the slaves as a political tool to get what he
>>wanted, he limited the freedom of speech, he struck down habeas corpus, the very
>>cornerstone of common law, he willfully and forcefully sent 350,000 men to their
>>deaths, he circumvented the constitution ever chance he could.
>
>A pity it was that the man wasn't impeached before he caused all the
>harm he did.
what an ignorant comment.
>>but he saved the ideas for the future.
>>
>>and for anyone to speak derisively of Lincoln and his greatness is painfully
>>ignorant.
>
>The only thing great about Lincoln was his height.
and so is this one.
>I don't normally respond to posters who are so inconsiderate of their
>readers that they don't bother with capitalization, but with your post
>being as silly as it was, I made an exception.
well, thank you. but my lack of capitalization does not supercede the truth.
on the issues of the American Civil war, you are painfully ignorant.
Dr Robin Bignall
[Attribution. I'm not sure who wrote the following, to which you
replied.]
>>The entire world, Europe and Asia and all the rest, was guided by
>>America? Wow, I didn't realise all their hopes and dreams rested on
>>what one country did.
>
>um, yes. are you denying that the history of the 20th century was not influenced
>heavily by the United States?
>
There are millions of Europeans, of round about my generation and
older, who thank the deities that America got involved in two world
wars and saved our bacon. America lost far more soldiers in the
Normandy landings, just as one example, than did any other country. In
my book that lets America make the odd mistake here and there.
It used to be London which had streets paved with gold for oppressed
peoples from poor countries. Now it's America. Just look at the
population of California, which, in the next few years, will have a
majority of non-white residents. Rightly or wrongly, getting to
America is a dream for lots of people. (And Britain, too, according to
our immigration figures. Things must be really bad where they are
coming from! <g>)
--
wrmst rgds
RB...(docr...@ntlworld.com)
Donna Richoux
[snip]
> It used to be London which had streets paved with gold for oppressed
> peoples from poor countries.
Is this true? Dick Whittington was from the *same* country. Except for
Dick W, I've only heard the location of streets paved with gold as
heaven and America.
>Now it's America. Just look at the
> population of California, which, in the next few years, will have a
> majority of non-white residents.
For that statement to be true, you have to classify Hispanics as
non-white. Most Hispanics in California are white. The usual way to
describe the situation is that "non-Hispanic whites will be in the
minority."
That status appeared to have already happened, last year, by the way,
from the articles I found on the Web, such as:
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/lindachavez/lc200096.shtml
An interesting point in that article is how the Californians took this
calmly and the Europeans got hysterical.
>Rightly or wrongly, getting to
> America is a dream for lots of people. (And Britain, too, according to
> our immigration figures. Things must be really bad where they are
> coming from! <g>)
You also imply that people of color are still streaming into California.
That may or may not be true, but many of them were born there, or
arrived 50 or more years ago, and stayed, and raised families.
--
From a former California girl --- Donna Richoux
Mark Barratt
>Dr Robin Bignall <docr...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
>>Now it's America. Just look at the
>> population of California, which, in the next few years, will have a
>> majority of non-white residents.
>
>For that statement to be true, you have to classify Hispanics as
>non-white. Most Hispanics in California are white. The usual way to
>describe the situation is that "non-Hispanic whites will be in the
>minority."
>
>That status appeared to have already happened, last year, by the way,
>from the articles I found on the Web, such as:
>
> http://www.townhall.com/columnists/lindachavez/lc200096.shtml
>
>An interesting point in that article is how the Californians took this
>calmly and the Europeans got hysterical.
As a European who doesn't remember getting hysterical, could I ask you
to expand upon that remark?
Frances Kemmish
>
> Dr Robin Bignall <docr...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
> [snip]
> > It used to be London which had streets paved with gold for oppressed
> > peoples from poor countries.
>
> Is this true? Dick Whittington was from the *same* country. Except for
> Dick W, I've only heard the location of streets paved with gold as
> heaven and America.
>
You can't have been listening too well. Haven't you done a Google
search on "streets paved with gold" and London?
> >Now it's America. Just look at the
> > population of California, which, in the next few years, will have a
> > majority of non-white residents.
>
> For that statement to be true, you have to classify Hispanics as
> non-white. Most Hispanics in California are white. The usual way to
> describe the situation is that "non-Hispanic whites will be in the
> minority."
>
Some of us remember Mr Bush Sr remarking on his "brown"
grandchildren, who are, if I recall correctly, children of a Mexican
mother.
> That status appeared to have already happened, last year, by the way,
> from the articles I found on the Web, such as:
>
> http://www.townhall.com/columnists/lindachavez/lc200096.shtml
>
> An interesting point in that article is how the Californians took this
> calmly and the Europeans got hysterical.
>
I read the Linda Chavez article, but not the articles she's
referring to; you'd think she'd quote some of the hysterical
utterances she's commenting on, rather than the rather mild-toned
remarks in the Guardian she did quote.
> >Rightly or wrongly, getting to
> > America is a dream for lots of people. (And Britain, too, according to
> > our immigration figures. Things must be really bad where they are
> > coming from! <g>)
>
> You also imply that people of color are still streaming into California.
> That may or may not be true, but many of them were born there, or
> arrived 50 or more years ago, and stayed, and raised families.
>
Fran
meirm...@erols.com
(Donna Richoux) posted:
>Dr Robin Bignall <docr...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
>[snip]
>> It used to be London which had streets paved with gold for oppressed
>> peoples from poor countries.
>
>Is this true? Dick Whittington was from the *same* country. Except for
>Dick W, I've only heard the location of streets paved with gold as
>heaven and America.
Reminds me of Sam Levinson, the Brooklyn NY school teacher and comic,
who said a few decades ago about his father, that when his father came
to America, he thought the streets were paved with gold. But when he
actually got here, he learned that The streets weren't paved with
gold, The streets weren't paved, He was supposed to pave them.
The Levinsons were very poor when he was a child.
>>Now it's America. Just look at the
>> population of California, which, in the next few years, will have a
>> majority of non-white residents.
>
>For that statement to be true, you have to classify Hispanics as
>non-white. Most Hispanics in California are white. The usual way to
>describe the situation is that "non-Hispanic whites will be in the
>minority."
>
>That status appeared to have already happened, last year, by the way,
>from the articles I found on the Web, such as:
>
> http://www.townhall.com/columnists/lindachavez/lc200096.shtml
>
>An interesting point in that article is how the Californians took this
>calmly and the Europeans got hysterical.
Is the second part true? She cites one line from one newspaper. She
came up before in aeu as longtime head of an org, I've forgotten the
name again, that wants to make English the US's official language.
I have a couple reasons to dislike her, and I'm man enough to admit
that that's the major reason I don't trust her. :) So is the second
part true?
>>Rightly or wrongly, getting to
>> America is a dream for lots of people. (And Britain, too, according to
>> our immigration figures. Things must be really bad where they are
>> coming from! <g>)
>
>You also imply that people of color are still streaming into California.
>That may or may not be true, but many of them were born there, or
>arrived 50 or more years ago, and stayed, and raised families.
Definitely true. Although aiui Robin is still right with the US the
most immigrated to country in the world, with 100,000 legal a year and
about 100,000 illegal (I don't know if this counts all the people who
get caught and sent back.).