Re: Is *shine* offensive?
R H Draney
>
>Recently I had a chat with an American parish priest living in
>California, but born and brought up in Chicago countryside. Intrigued
>by the scarceness of my name "Shine" in the US, he asked me if I knew
>what it meant to a black person. I said, "no". Well, I was astonished
>to hear him say that, among other meanings, the word "Shine" was also a
>disparaging term for a Black person.
It's a fairly rare usage, and is probably more so today than it was in the
past...for one thing, we're supposed to be more "sensitive" about things like
that, and for another, there are vanishingly few people of any race in the
shoe-shining profession these days (I once had one offer to brighten my Adidas,
which should give some indication of how scarce the work is)....
That said, I have encountered this sense of the word once before, when someone
mentioned that Stephen King originally wanted to use "The Shine" as the title of
his story of a man who goes insane in an isolated Colorado resort...both the
original title and the modified version that got out refer to the boy's gift of
being able to see ghosts, a gift he shares with the old caretaker, but since the
caretaker is Black, King's agent thought there might be misunderstandings....r
Mark in Stumptown
"R H Draney" <dado...@spamcop.net> wrote in message
news:cgd8n...@drn.newsguy.com...
The Steven King book and movie is _The Shining_. "Shine", a song by the
Mills Brothers decades ago, refers to the perjorative usage.
Mark in Stumptown.
Mxsmanic
> Well, I was astonished
> to hear him say that, among other meanings, the word "Shine" was also a
> disparaging term for a Black person.
There are 3,284,221 disparaging terms for black people in English
(including "black"), which represents about 75% of English vocabulary.
But in the final analysis, it's intention that counts, so that's all you
really need to worry about. People who have a problem with the words
themselves need to resolve their issues themselves; it's not your
problem.
> Given the fact that I am not a black, is it strange for someone to call
> me "Shine", when s/he already knows it as a disparaging term for
> black?
Should you care?
--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
Tony Cooper
>Hi folks,
>
>Recently I had a chat with an American parish priest living in
>California, but born and brought up in Chicago countryside. Intrigued
>by the scarceness of my name "Shine" in the US, he asked me if I knew
>what it meant to black person. I said, "no". Well, I was astonished
>to hear him say that, among other meanings, the word "Shine" was also a
>disparaging term for a Black person.
>
>I never thought the name "Shine" had such a black side! To my dismay,
>the dictionary.com testifies it, though it comes only as the eighth
>sense:
>
>Shine
>n.
>1. Brightness from a source of light; radiance.
>2. Brightness from reflected light; luster.
>3. A shoeshine.
>4. Excellence in quality or appearance; splendor.
>5. Fair weather: rain or shine.
>6. shines Informal. Pranks or tricks.
>7. Slang. Whiskey; moonshine.
>8. Offensive Slang. Used as a disparaging term for a Black person.
>
>Given the fact that I am not a black, is it strange for someone to call
>me "Shine", when s/he already knows it as a disparaging term for
>black?
>
>Any comments about my name?
>
No. First of all, the term is used as "a shine" or "the shine" as in
"There was a shine standing in the parking lot". Secondly, it's a
very uncommon usage in general. Like many terms, some people may use
it frequently, but those "some people" are not commonly come across.
I've seen your posts for months, and the association with the
derogatory word never came to mind.
Tony Cooper
wrote:
>Shine filted:
>>
>>Recently I had a chat with an American parish priest living in
>>California, but born and brought up in Chicago countryside. Intrigued
>>by the scarceness of my name "Shine" in the US, he asked me if I knew
>>what it meant to a black person. I said, "no". Well, I was astonished
>>to hear him say that, among other meanings, the word "Shine" was also a
>>disparaging term for a Black person.
>
>It's a fairly rare usage, and is probably more so today than it was in the
>past...for one thing, we're supposed to be more "sensitive" about things like
>that, and for another, there are vanishingly few people of any race in the
>shoe-shining profession these days (I once had one offer to brighten my Adidas,
>which should give some indication of how scarce the work is)....
>
You think that's the source of it? I dunno. Black complexions seem
to reflect, or shine, more than lighter complexions. It's easier to
envisage a shiny black face than a shiny white face.
I wouldn't bet either way, though.
Armond Perretta
>>> if I knew what it meant to a black person. I said,
>>> "no". Well, I was astonished to hear him say that, among other
>>> meanings, the word "Shine" was also a disparaging term for a Black
>>> person.
>>
>> vanishingly few people of any race in the shoe-shining profession
>>
> You think that's the source of it? I dunno. Black complexions seem
> to reflect, or shine, more than lighter complexions. It's easier to
> envisage a shiny black face than a shiny white face.
>
> I wouldn't bet either way, though.
I would take this bet. In Philadelphia where I grew up this was a fairly
common racist appellation and there was never any question what the speaker
meant. The connotation was clearly "shoe shine" related.
--
Good luck and good sailing.
s/v Kerry Deare of Barnegat
http://kerrydeare.home.comcast.net/
R H Draney
>someone
>> mentioned that Stephen King originally wanted to use "The Shine" as the
>title of
>> his story of a man who goes insane in an isolated Colorado resort...both
>the
>> original title and the modified version that got out refer to the boy's
>gift of
>> being able to see ghosts, a gift he shares with the old caretaker, but
>since the
>> caretaker is Black, King's agent thought there might be
>misunderstandings....r
>
>The Steven King book and movie is _The Shining_. "Shine", a song by the
>Mills Brothers decades ago, refers to the perjorative usage.
The book was published as "The Shining" because Mr King took the advice of his
agent and changed it from the title he originally intended....
It is possible to understand a title as meaning something completely unrelated
to what the work's creator intended...I know of two glaring examples where I did
just that:
(1) Michael Nesmith's experimental video album "Elephant Parts"...I took it as
referring to the poem "The Blind Men and the Elephant" by John Godfrey Saxe, and
implying that the video was made up of pieces none of which gave an accurate
picture of the whole...I later discovered that Nez wanted to call attention to
ivory poaching....
(2) Sting's album "The Dream of the Blue Turtles"...I thought it had to do with
the story of Urashima Taro, in which Japan's version of Rip Van Winkle is taken
to an undersea kingdom on the back of a blue turtle, returning home after what
he thinks is a short time to find that many years have passed...Sting made it
clear in an interview that he had something else altogether in mind, although I
still don't understand quite what that something else was....
Others point to John Landis's film "An American Werewolf in London", which had
no connection to a certain Warren Zevon song...that didn't stop everyone who
heard the name of the project from assuming that the song was the basis for the
movie....r
Tony Cooper
I'm not defending either source. Someone that dates first appearances
might shine some light on this. How early in our history were shoe
shine "boys" on the streets of America compared to how long black
people were seen in America?
Maria Conlon
> Hi folks,
>
> Recently I had a chat with an American parish priest living in
> California, but born and brought up in Chicago countryside.
Intrigued
knew
> what it meant to a black person. I said, "no". Well, I was
> astonished to hear him say that, among other meanings, the word
> "Shine" was also a disparaging term for a Black person.
>
dismay,
> the dictionary.com testifies it, though it comes only as the
eighth
> sense:
>
>
> Any comments about my name?
Are you talking about your first name? I ask because the surname
"Shine" is somewhat uncommon but hardly unknown in the US. (I have
relatives whose last name is "Shine.")
And is it your "real" name -- appearing on your birth certificate or
some other official paper? Just curious.
Maria Conlon
Donna Richoux
> On Mon, 23 Aug 2004 15:21:35 -0400, "Armond Perretta"
[snip discussion of "shine" as racial term]
> >I would take this bet. In Philadelphia where I grew up this was a fairly
> >common racist appellation and there was never any question what the speaker
> >meant. The connotation was clearly "shoe shine" related.
>
> I'm not defending either source. Someone that dates first appearances
> might shine some light on this. How early in our history were shoe
> shine "boys" on the streets of America compared to how long black
> people were seen in America?
That's a tough profession to date the history of. "Shoeshine" is in a
few dictionaries but not one of the ones that gives dates. The DAE has
only "shoe shining parlor," "shoe-shine parlor," and "shoe parlor", all
meaning "a place where shoes are shined or blacked." First citation,
1898, about an establishment in Kansas City.
The "Making of America" site (approx 1850-1930) has 65 hits for
"shoe-shine." I looked at two -- the 1915 book was specifically about
the "colored" people of New York; the 1924 book mentioned how the Greeks
of New York had taken over the shoe-shine parlors and stands from the
Italians.
Well, as I say, it's a tough one to find much history on.
A "bootblack" would be the older term, wouldn't it? Yes, M-W says:
Date: 1817
one who shines shoes
Anyway, I think the comparison you need is to how long "shine" has been
considered an insult, not how long blacks have been in America (which of
course is a very long time).
--
Best -- Donna Richoux
Andrew Gwilliam
> Shine writes:
>
>
>>Well, I was astonished
>>to hear him say that, among other meanings, the word "Shine" was also a
>>disparaging term for a Black person.
>
>
> There are 3,284,221 disparaging terms for black people in English
> (including "black"), which represents about 75% of English vocabulary.
This is a rather curious statement for a teacher of English to make.
> But in the final analysis, it's intention that counts, so that's all you
> really need to worry about. People who have a problem with the words
> themselves need to resolve their issues themselves; it's not your
> problem.
And at the end of the day, I could say "he's alright for a nigger", and
well-meaning intention would be worth as much as a snowflake in a bakery.
--
Andrew Gwilliam
To email me, replace "bottomless_pit" with "silverhelm"
Areff
> The "Making of America" site (approx 1850-1930) has 65 hits for
> "shoe-shine." I looked at two -- the 1915 book was specifically about
> the "colored" people of New York; the 1924 book mentioned how the Greeks
> of New York had taken over the shoe-shine parlors and stands from the
> Italians.
Ay! That preceded "Famous Original Spiro's"!
In modern-day New York most of the shoe-shining professionals one sees on
the street or other public spaces are African-American, and specifically,
I think, Southern-US-descended African-Americans. I have noticed, though,
quite a few Greek shoe repair places.
> Anyway, I think the comparison you need is to how long "shine" has been
> considered an insult, not how long blacks have been in America (which of
> course is a very long time).
WBAI had a guy named Brother Shine who had a music show, a few years
ago. There's some stuff about him on the Web. See, e.g.,
http://www.radio4all.org/freepacifica/xmas/0305brother_shine.html
http://www.wbai.net/wbai/bros_shine_res8-6-01.html
--
Skitt
I must say, you're alright for an Englishman.
--
Skitt (in Hayward, California)
www.geocities.com/opus731/
Andrew Gwilliam
> In modern-day New York most of the shoe-shining professionals one sees on
> the street or other public spaces are African-American, and specifically,
> I think, Southern-US-descended African-Americans.
Surely the vast majority of African-Americans have their earliest
American ancestry in the South? Perhaps you need to clarify "descended".
Andrew Gwilliam
Gosh!
Areff
> Areff wrote:
>
>> In modern-day New York most of the shoe-shining professionals one sees on
>> the street or other public spaces are African-American, and specifically,
>> I think, Southern-US-descended African-Americans.
>
> Surely the vast majority of African-Americans have their earliest
> American ancestry in the South?
You are correct, sir, but that's not true of New York (Largest City in
America). Well, a majority of African-Americans in New York (not counting
ethnic groups generally classified as Hispanic or Latino) probably *are*
Southern-US-descended, but there's at least a sizable minority that are
Caribbean (West Indian). In a place like Brooklyn (Fourth Largest City in
America) I believe West Indian-descended African-Americans may comprise as
much as half the African-American population of that fair City. You also
have a growing population of immigrants from certain African countries,
particularly evident on rainy days, unless things have changed recently.
--
Steve Hayes
>Hi folks,
>
>Recently I had a chat with an American parish priest living in
>California, but born and brought up in Chicago countryside. Intrigued
>by the scarceness of my name "Shine" in the US, he asked me if I knew
>what it meant to black person. I said, "no". Well, I was astonished
>to hear him say that, among other meanings, the word "Shine" was also a
>disparaging term for a Black person.
>
>I never thought the name "Shine" had such a black side! To my dismay,
>the dictionary.com testifies it, though it comes only as the eighth
>sense:
And then there's Shine Warne, who doesn't shine as brightly as Muri.
--
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7734/stevesig.htm
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk
Ben Zimmer
>
> Tony Cooper <tony_co...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 23 Aug 2004 15:21:35 -0400, "Armond Perretta"
>
> [snip discussion of "shine" as racial term]
>
> > >I would take this bet. In Philadelphia where I grew up this was a fairly
> > >common racist appellation and there was never any question what the speaker
> > >meant. The connotation was clearly "shoe shine" related.
> >
> > I'm not defending either source. Someone that dates first appearances
> > might shine some light on this. How early in our history were shoe
> > shine "boys" on the streets of America compared to how long black
> > people were seen in America?
>
> That's a tough profession to date the history of. "Shoeshine" is in a
> few dictionaries but not one of the ones that gives dates. The DAE has
> only "shoe shining parlor," "shoe-shine parlor," and "shoe parlor", all
> meaning "a place where shoes are shined or blacked." First citation,
> 1898, about an establishment in Kansas City.
Proquest takes "shoe(-)shining" back a decade earlier:
HUMOR AND SARCASM.
New York Times, May 11, 1888. p. 4
So profitable has shoe shining proved to one colored
"Professor" in this city that he has recently blossomed
out in a new tall white hat, a red necktie of gorgeous
tint, and a meerschaum pipe of the finest quality.
-- Springfield Republican
> The "Making of America" site (approx 1850-1930) has 65 hits for
> "shoe-shine." I looked at two -- the 1915 book was specifically about
> the "colored" people of New York; the 1924 book mentioned how the Greeks
> of New York had taken over the shoe-shine parlors and stands from the
> Italians.
The earliest OED2 cite for "shoe-shine" also mentions Greek immigrants:
1911 H. P. FAIRCHILD Greek Immigration to U.S. vii. 127
In 1904 there were but three *shoe-shine parlors in the
hands of Greeks in the city.
Not sure which city that is about, but Greeks were running shoe-shine
parlors in many US cities in the early 20th century. From Proquest:
Greek Boys Black Shoes; Have Monopoly of Business.
Chicago Tribune, Jul 15, 1906, p. E1
"Bootblacking" is an occupation which appeals less to
the white American then anything else in the catalogue
of small occupations. [...]
At the present time the Greek is in charge of most of
the exclusively bootblacking places in the northern
states. The negro in the north blacks shoes largely
as a side line to a porter's place in the barber shop
or country hotel. Everyehwere the Greek is encroaching
on the field until it is conceded that the Greek
bootblack is coming into his own.
> Well, as I say, it's a tough one to find much history on.
>
> A "bootblack" would be the older term, wouldn't it? Yes, M-W says:
> Date: 1817
> one who shines shoes
"Bootblacking" and "shoeshining" were used interchangeably in early
20th-century articles, as the one above.
> Anyway, I think the comparison you need is to how long "shine" has been
> considered an insult, not how long blacks have been in America (which of
> course is a very long time).
OED2's earliest cite is from 1908:
1908 J. M. SULLIVAN Criminal Slang 24 Shine, a colored person.
No mention of any relation to "shoe-shine".
Charles Stewart
> Shine filted:
> >
> >Recently I had a chat with an American parish priest living in
> >California, but born and brought up in Chicago countryside. Intrigued
> >by the scarceness of my name "Shine" in the US, he asked me if I knew
> >what it meant to a black person. I said, "no". Well, I was astonished
> >to hear him say that, among other meanings, the word "Shine" was also a
> >disparaging term for a Black person.
>
> It's a fairly rare usage, and is probably more so today than it was in the
> past...for one thing, we're supposed to be more "sensitive" about things like
> that, and for another, there are vanishingly few people of any race in the
> shoe-shining profession these days (I once had one offer to brighten my Adidas,
> which should give some indication of how scarce the work is)....
I echo this assessment. Neither its use as a handle nor the other
references to it in this thread conjure anything even mildly negative
to me. I had to really think back to relate to it as an outdated
pejorative of which I was vaguely aware. But then I may not be
sensitive to it because I don't recall ever being referred to as a
shine, insultingly by whites or playfully by blacks. Although when I
was a youngster and shoeshine boys (often, in fact, older men) were
common and invariably black, I think I would have gotten the
connotation if it had been used toward me as a slur.
I don't think the OP need be concerned that the word will evoke a
negative response nowadays, although some people who heard (or used)
it a lot back in the day may make the association and may feel a
little uncomfortable at first calling someone by that name. I can
imagine feeling briefly embarrassed or a little unsure of someone's
head space if he jokingly parlayed that name into a shoeshine
reference in my presence. But I'm not even sure I'd notice then.
Enjoy your handle!
Charles Stewart
Steve Hayes
>I must say, you're alright for an Englishman.
And you're okay for a Russian too.
Charles Stewart
> Areff wrote:
>
> > In modern-day New York most of the shoe-shining professionals one sees on
> > the street or other public spaces are African-American, and specifically,
> > I think, Southern-US-descended African-Americans.
>
> Surely the vast majority of African-Americans have their earliest
> American ancestry in the South? Perhaps you need to clarify "descended".
I was wondering the same thing...
Charles Stewart
Charles Riggs
<tony_co...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>On 23 Aug 2004 10:15:36 -0700, R H Draney <dado...@spamcop.net>
>wrote:
>>It's a fairly rare usage, and is probably more so today than it was in the
>>past...for one thing, we're supposed to be more "sensitive" about things like
>>that, and for another, there are vanishingly few people of any race in the
>>shoe-shining profession these days (I once had one offer to brighten my Adidas,
>>which should give some indication of how scarce the work is)....
>>
>You think that's the source of it? I dunno. Black complexions seem
>to reflect, or shine, more than lighter complexions. It's easier to
>envisage a shiny black face than a shiny white face.
Yo Mama!
But seriously, I agree with you. My friend Ronny had the shiniest
nearly-bald head I've ever encountered. He was proud of it, it shone
so. No white man's head could have such a fine glow.
One factor is that Negroes tend to have better complexions than white
people. They generally have smooth skin with few, if any,
imperfections, blemishes, and so forth.. As with a mirror, you don't
want surface imperfections if the object is to reflect light.
>I wouldn't bet either way, though.
Either origin sounds logical, so I wouldn't either.
Charles Riggs
wrote:
>Andrew Gwilliam wrote:
And you're unarguably the finest Lithuanian I've ever known.
Andrew Gwilliam
Don't you just love the implication that Greeks weren't "white"?!
Presumably they fell under the category of "swarthy foreigner".
Andrew Gwilliam
> On Mon, 23 Aug 2004 15:04:04 -0400, Tony Cooper
> <tony_co...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>
>>On 23 Aug 2004 10:15:36 -0700, R H Draney <dado...@spamcop.net>
>>wrote:
>
>
>>>It's a fairly rare usage, and is probably more so today than it was in the
>>>past...for one thing, we're supposed to be more "sensitive" about things like
>>>that, and for another, there are vanishingly few people of any race in the
>>>shoe-shining profession these days (I once had one offer to brighten my Adidas,
>>>which should give some indication of how scarce the work is)....
>>>
>>
>>You think that's the source of it? I dunno. Black complexions seem
>>to reflect, or shine, more than lighter complexions. It's easier to
>>envisage a shiny black face than a shiny white face.
>
>
> Yo Mama!
>
> But seriously, I agree with you. My friend Ronny had the shiniest
> nearly-bald head I've ever encountered. He was proud of it, it shone
> so. No white man's head could have such a fine glow.
>
> One factor is that Negroes tend to have better complexions than white
> people. They generally have smooth skin with few, if any,
> imperfections, blemishes, and so forth..
I find that hard to believe. We perhaps need to refer the point to
[insert type of doctor who deals with the skin] or even a beautician.
> [...] As with a mirror, you don't
> want surface imperfections if the object is to reflect light.
Well, I would've thought reflecting heat was the deal; I freely admit to
being a poor geneticist/physicist though.
And human skin is human skin. You're subject to the vagaries of cell
mutation, childhood disease, scratches, etc, regardless of skin type.
Andrew Gwilliam
> On Mon, 23 Aug 2004 15:19:07 -0700, "Skitt" <ski...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>
>>I must say, you're alright for an Englishman.
>
>
> And you're okay for a Russian too.
Latvian, no?
Andrew Gwilliam
> On 23 Aug 2004 09:40:24 -0700, "Shine" <shin...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Hi folks,
>>
>>Recently I had a chat with an American parish priest living in
>>California, but born and brought up in Chicago countryside. Intrigued
>>by the scarceness of my name "Shine" in the US, he asked me if I knew
>>what it meant to black person. I said, "no". Well, I was astonished
>>to hear him say that, among other meanings, the word "Shine" was also a
>>disparaging term for a Black person.
>>
>>I never thought the name "Shine" had such a black side! To my dismay,
>>the dictionary.com testifies it, though it comes only as the eighth
>>sense:
>
>
> And then there's Shine Warne, who doesn't shine as brightly as Muri.
>
>
Ka-ching!
Andrew Gwilliam
> Maria Conlon wrote:
>
>>Shine wrote:
>>
>>>Any comments about my name?
>>
>>Are you talking about your first name? I ask because the surname
>>"Shine" is somewhat uncommon but hardly unknown in the US. (I have
>>relatives whose last name is "Shine.")
>>
>>And is it your "real" name -- appearing on your birth certificate or
>>some other official paper? Just curious.
>
> Yes, it is. "Shine" is my given name (first name).
If I may be nosey, what made your parents choose it?
Charles Riggs
<bottoml...@southernskies.co.uk> wrote:
>Charles Riggs wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 23 Aug 2004 15:04:04 -0400, Tony Cooper
>> <tony_co...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On 23 Aug 2004 10:15:36 -0700, R H Draney <dado...@spamcop.net>
>>>wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>It's a fairly rare usage, and is probably more so today than it was in the
>>>>past...for one thing, we're supposed to be more "sensitive" about things like
>>>>that, and for another, there are vanishingly few people of any race in the
>>>>shoe-shining profession these days (I once had one offer to brighten my Adidas,
>>>>which should give some indication of how scarce the work is)....
>>>>
>>>
>>>You think that's the source of it? I dunno. Black complexions seem
>>>to reflect, or shine, more than lighter complexions. It's easier to
>>>envisage a shiny black face than a shiny white face.
>>
>>
>> Yo Mama!
>>
>> But seriously, I agree with you. My friend Ronny had the shiniest
>> nearly-bald head I've ever encountered. He was proud of it, it shone
>> so. No white man's head could have such a fine glow.
>>
>> One factor is that Negroes tend to have better complexions than white
>> people. They generally have smooth skin with few, if any,
>> imperfections, blemishes, and so forth..
>
>I find that hard to believe.
Oh? Am I lying?
>We perhaps need to refer the point to
>[insert type of doctor who deals with the skin] or even a beautician.
No, we need to refer it to someone who's seen several hundred black
and white women bare-assed naked. I volunteer.
> > [...] As with a mirror, you don't
> > want surface imperfections if the object is to reflect light.
>
>Well, I would've thought reflecting heat was the deal; I freely admit to
>being a poor geneticist/physicist though.
>
>And human skin is human skin. You're subject to the vagaries of cell
>mutation, childhood disease, scratches, etc, regardless of skin type.
A is not equal to B, not matter how hard you protest.
Skitt
> "Skitt"wrote:
>> I must say, you're alright for an Englishman.
>
> And you're okay for a Russian too.
Naah, I'm Latvian, with a touch of Swedish and tad of Hungarian Gypsy
(that's what put the wave in my hair and the love of music in my brain). No
Russian. Still, I'm alright, I think. Mostly, it feels that way.
By the way, my remark at the top makes no sense without its context. Oh,
well ...
Skitt
> Steve Hayes wrote:
>> "Skitt" wrote:
>>> I must say, you're alright for an Englishman.
>>
>> And you're okay for a Russian too.
>
> Latvian, no?
Mostly. See my other post that I made a minute ago.
Skitt
Them's fightin' words where I come from.
Mxsmanic
> I find that hard to believe. We perhaps need to refer the point to
> [insert type of doctor who deals with the skin] or even a beautician.
It may well be the other way around. Blacks have problems with
hyperpigmentation and keloids that whites do not. However, many types
of blemishes are much easier to see on white skin than on black skin.
And whites are far more prone to UV-induced skin cancer. The skin of
whites also heals more slowly than that of blacks (but it doesn't form
keloids, for the same reason).
--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
Andrew Gwilliam
> Andrew Gwilliam wrote:
>
>>I find that hard to believe. We perhaps need to refer the point to
>>[insert type of doctor who deals with the skin] or even a beautician.
>
> you mean a *dermatologist*
Thank you. I just had a complete mental block there for a mo'.
Skitt
> Skitt wrote:
>> Steve Hayes wrote:
>>> "Skitt"wrote:
>>>> I must say, you're alright for an Englishman.
>>>
>>> And you're okay for a Russian too.
>>
>> Naah, I'm Latvian, with a touch of Swedish and tad of Hungarian Gypsy
>> (that's what put the wave in my hair and the love of music in my
>> brain).
>
> My maternal grandfather was from Hungary. He came to the US
> in midlife and never lost his stiff (extremely anti-gypsy)
> ways.
Yeah, I know. But it really was a Gypsy that got to some gal of my family
tree on my dad's side. Mom's family had the Swedish part.
> My grandmother learned to cook many hungarian dishes,
> among them chicken (or beef) paprikash. (For those who've never
> tasted this, may it be your first meal in heaven) Long after
> his death, my wife and I learned to make it by watching her
> in the kitchen and writing down every move.
I've eaten it, although my mom never prepared it. Tasty! I used to have a
Hungarian table tennis buddy, you see, and he and his wife invited us over
for dinner.
--
Skitt
Things keep happening that no one can explain.
- Sally Brown (Peanuts).
Charles Riggs
wrote:
>Andrew Gwilliam writes:
>
>> I find that hard to believe. We perhaps need to refer the point to
>> [insert type of doctor who deals with the skin] or even a beautician.
>
>It may well be the other way around.
And it may very well not be. If I can't trust my six senses, I give
up.
Charles Riggs
wrote:
Whoops. I meant the finest Latvian. Far away places about which we
know little, and all that.
Skitt
> "Skitt" wrote:
>>> And you're unarguably the finest Lithuanian I've ever known.
>>
>> Them's fightin' words where I come from.
>
> Whoops. I meant the finest Latvian. Far away places about which we
> know little, and all that.
Well, that's different, then.
Steve Hayes
<bottoml...@southernskies.co.uk> wrote:
>Steve Hayes wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 23 Aug 2004 15:19:07 -0700, "Skitt" <ski...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>I must say, you're alright for an Englishman.
>>
>>
>> And you're okay for a Russian too.
>
>Latvian, no?
Welsh, no?
Is an expatriate Welshman any more English than an expatriate Latvian is
Russian?
Steve Hayes
<bottoml...@southernskies.co.uk> wrote:
>Steve Hayes wrote:
>> And then there's Shine Warne, who doesn't shine as brightly as Muri.
>>
>>
>Ka-ching!
I'm not sure that his catching's any better either.
Andrew Gwilliam
> On Tue, 24 Aug 2004 08:28:50 +0100, Andrew Gwilliam
> <bottoml...@southernskies.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>>Steve Hayes wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Mon, 23 Aug 2004 15:19:07 -0700, "Skitt" <ski...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>I must say, you're alright for an Englishman.
>>>
>>>
>>>And you're okay for a Russian too.
>>
>>Latvian, no?
>
>
> Welsh, no?
>
> Is an expatriate Welshman any more English than an expatriate Latvian is
> Russian?
No, but I'm English!
Evan Kirshenbaum
> Don't you just love the implication that Greeks weren't "white"?!
> Presumably they fell under the category of "swarthy foreigner".
There's a book by Noel Ignatiev called _How the Irish Became White_
which presumably deals with a similar topic.
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |Those who would give up essential
1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |Liberty, to purchase a little
Palo Alto, CA 94304 |temporary Safety, deserve neither
|Liberty nor Safety.
kirsh...@hpl.hp.com | Benjamin Franklin
(650)857-7572
Carmen L. Abruzzi
> Ben Zimmer wrote:
>>
>> The earliest OED2 cite for "shoe-shine" also mentions Greek immigrants:
>>
>> 1911 H. P. FAIRCHILD Greek Immigration to U.S. vii. 127 In
>> 1904 there were but three *shoe-shine parlors in the hands of
>> Greeks in the city.
>>
>> Not sure which city that is about, but Greeks were running shoe-shine
>> parlors in many US cities in the early 20th century. From Proquest:
>>
>> Greek Boys Black Shoes; Have Monopoly of Business.
>> Chicago Tribune, Jul 15, 1906, p. E1
>> "Bootblacking" is an occupation which appeals less to
>> the white American then anything else in the catalogue
>> of small occupations. [...]
>> At the present time the Greek is in charge of most of the
>> exclusively bootblacking places in the northern
>> states. The negro in the north blacks shoes largely
>> as a side line to a porter's place in the barber shop
>> or country hotel. Everyehwere the Greek is encroaching
>> on the field until it is conceded that the Greek bootblack is
>> coming into his own.
>
>
> Don't you just love the implication that Greeks weren't "white"?!
> Presumably they fell under the category of "swarthy foreigner".
>
an Italian is hired as farmhand for a good ole boy redneck
farm owner, and this Italian ends up seducing the GOB's wife
and such and the GOB finally ends up with his shotgun
trained on the Italian when the local sherrif drives up just
in time and tells the GOB to put it down it ain't worth it
and the GOB yells back "You understand sherrif; you're a
white man!".
\
I said to my cousin "he don't consider Eye-talian to be white".
Tony Cooper
I vaguely remember either that movie or a similar one, but the Italian
was a prisoner of war from one of those camps where the prisoners
worked locally. If this is the same movie, then the Italian wasn't
just not-white, but not-American. The latter being almost as bad as
being a New Yawker in the South.
Raymond S. Wise
I have read of a case in which the children of a family from southern Italy
who had immigrated to the American South were assigned to a "colored" public
school, and the incident led to a court case (which, I believe, the Italians
lost), and I've previously posted about the matter to this newsgroup. I
don't remember exactly where I read it, however, and it appears not to have
been written about in either alt.folklore.urban or www.snopes.com .
--
Raymond S. Wise
Minneapolis, Minnesota USA
E-mail: mplsray @ yahoo . com
Andrew Gwilliam
Apartheid-era South Africa classified the Japanese as "White", I
believe. Of course economic considerations would have been involved;
and I doubt that there are many Japanese-South Africans.
Mike Lyle
[...]
> Apartheid-era South Africa classified the Japanese as "White", I
> believe. Of course economic considerations would have been involved;
> and I doubt that there are many Japanese-South Africans.
Yep, I remember that one from my post-Sharpeville personal-boycott
days (and I stuck to it till Mandela's rehabilitation): Japanese were
white, Chinese were coloured.
Not just economics, of course: the worst elements of the apartheid
regime had been thoroughly implicated with the Axis, so they'd have
had a historical broederbond with the Japanese, whether they liked it
or not. (Love to know how the Boers would have coped with a Japanese
take-over of Australia!)
Mike.
Donna Richoux
> Carmen L. Abruzzi wrote:
>
> > Andrew Gwilliam wrote:
> >>
> >> Don't you just love the implication that Greeks weren't "white"?!
> >> Presumably they fell under the category of "swarthy foreigner".
> >>
> > I watched a movie once,
> [...]
> > I said to my cousin "he don't consider Eye-talian to be white".
>
> Could it be that the narrowest sense of white is WASP*, and that's what
> is meant in these examples?
>
> *With a certain lenience towards other protestant Germanic people?
Sure. You don't have to go to historical documents for this. "White" is
used to contrast with "Hispanic" every day nowadays.
I see the US Census Office has wrestled with this and come to some
compromises. They allow that white people can be Hispanic or not, and
give separate lines in the population figures, with overlapping numbers:
White persons 75.1%
Persons of Hispanic or Latino origin 12.5%
White persons, not of Hispanic/Latino origin 69.1%
75 minus 59 is nine, so the extra three percent in the Hispanic figure
must come from Hispanic blacks.
--
Best -- Donna Richoux
Richard Ulrich
wrote:
> Oliver Cromm <lispa...@internet.uqam.ca> wrote:
>
> > Carmen L. Abruzzi wrote:
> >
> > > Andrew Gwilliam wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Don't you just love the implication that Greeks weren't "white"?!
> > >> Presumably they fell under the category of "swarthy foreigner".
> > >>
> > > I watched a movie once,
> > [...]
> > > I said to my cousin "he don't consider Eye-talian to be white".
> >
> > Could it be that the narrowest sense of white is WASP*, and that's what
> > is meant in these examples?
> >
> > *With a certain lenience towards other protestant Germanic people?
- See Gould's "Mismeasure of Intelligence" - The psychometricians
of 80 or so years ago found it easy to distinguish among multiple
'races' in their measures of IQ, and southern Europeans were not
among those they favored. IIRC, that 'research' became the basis
of discriminatory immigration laws.
>
> Sure. You don't have to go to historical documents for this. "White" is
> used to contrast with "Hispanic" every day nowadays.
>
> I see the US Census Office has wrestled with this and come to some
> compromises. They allow that white people can be Hispanic or not, and
> give separate lines in the population figures, with overlapping numbers:
>
> White persons 75.1%
> Persons of Hispanic or Latino origin 12.5%
> White persons, not of Hispanic/Latino origin 69.1%
>
> 75 minus 59 is nine, so the extra three percent in the Hispanic figure
> must come from Hispanic blacks.
What happens to Mexican and Latin American Indians?
Well, at least, I think there are some among the immigrants
from Equador.
--
Rich Ulrich, wpi...@pitt.edu
http://www.pitt.edu/~wpilib/index.html
Steve Hayes
You got that right. The Japanese were on the "right" side in WWII.
Oliver Cromm
> Oliver Cromm <lispa...@internet.uqam.ca> wrote:
>
>> Could it be that the narrowest sense of white is WASP*, and that's what
>> is meant in these examples?
>>
>> *With a certain lenience towards other protestant Germanic people?
>
> Sure. You don't have to go to historical documents for this. "White" is
> used to contrast with "Hispanic" every day nowadays.
>
> I see the US Census Office has wrestled with this and come to some
> compromises. They allow that white people can be Hispanic or not, and
> give separate lines in the population figures, with overlapping numbers:
I have read an analysis that said that Hispanics themselves often
weren't willing to define themselves as white, so a new category had to
be created, which started to mess up the whole clear-cut black-and-white
system they had before.
--
Oliver C.
don groves
@er.uqam.ca wrote...
The census office needed to make this change. I've met hispanics
so dark brown that calling them white would be ridiculous and
others so light-skinned they could pass as caucasian.
But we now have King George II, so clear-cut black-and-white is
back in US government as never before.
--
dg
Areff
> The census office needed to make this change. I've met hispanics
> so dark brown that calling them white would be ridiculous and
> others so light-skinned they could pass as caucasian.
>
> But we now have King George II, so clear-cut black-and-white is
> back in US government as never before.
What's your take on future Latino Republican president George P. Bush?
(Sometime after the Hoyer administration.)
--
Mxsmanic
> I've met hispanics
> so dark brown that calling them white would be ridiculous and
> others so light-skinned they could pass as caucasian.
True Hispanics (i.e., people from Spain and Portugal) are quite fair,
since they are of European ancestry.
don groves
wrote...
In typical Bush fashion, he (the current one) played up his
knowledge of Spanish, and supposed desire to help Mexico, during
the 2000 run-up, selected Mexico's president Vincente Fox as his
first foreign visitor, and has completely ignored the US/Mexican
relationship since.
--
dg
don groves
Here's someone's take:
Headlines in the year 2035
--------------------------
Ozone created by electric cars now killing millions in
California, the seventh largest country in the world.
Baby conceived naturally.... Scientists stumped.
Castro dies at age 112; Cuban cigars can now be imported
legally but President Chelsea Clinton has banned all smoking.
George Z. Bush says he will run for president in 2036.
35 year study: diet and exercise are keys to weight loss.
Texas executes its last remaining citizen.
New federal law requires nail clippers, screw-drivers and
baseball bats be registered by January, 2036.
--
dg