Read the comments. https://wdwnt.com/2022/03/indianettes-marching-band-drill-team-not-allowed-to-wear-war-bonnet-during-disney-performance/
Quote from: jimbogumbo on March 19, 2022, 11:50:07 AM
Read the comments. https://wdwnt.com/2022/03/indianettes-marching-band-drill-team-not-allowed-to-wear-war-bonnet-during-disney-performance/
I can't believe those outfits and chants lasted past 1990.
Quote from: ciao_yall on March 19, 2022, 04:35:35 PM
I can't believe those outfits and chants lasted past 1990.
Ditto.
You didn't even see the weirdest image because I couldn't isolate it. And, when I couldn't believe what I was reading (couldn't wear the headdresses, could yell scalp em bros?) I googled. There is ANOTHER such squad in Keller TX named Indianettes!
I also looked up a school where I supervised teachers in previous state. The men's athletic teams are still Braves, and the women's are Squaws.
On St. Patrick's Day, I've seen a LOT of people who must be "naturalized" Irish citizens, and no-one seems to be checking their passports or DNA. Similarly, during Oktoberfest there seem to be many naturalized Germans.
Last I checked, we didn't take over Irish or German land without paying for it.
That might be the difference.
M.
Quote from: marshwiggle on March 20, 2022, 12:22:51 PM
On St. Patrick's Day, I've seen a LOT of people who must be "naturalized" Irish citizens, and no-one seems to be checking their passports or DNA. Similarly, during Oktoberfest there seem to be many naturalized Germans.
So, what would happen if this band went to Toronto or Vancouver to perform?
Quote from: mamselle on March 20, 2022, 01:26:30 PM
Last I checked, we didn't take over Irish or German land without paying for it.
That might be the difference.
M.
If "we" means the English, many *Irish people might disagree with that....
*including Catholics in Northern Ireland.
Can a boy be an Indianette? why not?
Quote from: marshwiggle on March 20, 2022, 03:22:54 PM
Quote from: mamselle on March 20, 2022, 01:26:30 PM
Last I checked, we didn't take over Irish or German land without paying for it.
That might be the difference.
M.
If "we" means the English, many *Irish people might disagree with that....
*including Catholics in Northern Ireland.
It doesn't.
The big problem here is what I call the *"Brexit problem" or the "sovereignty association problem". Finding a majority of people unhappy with the status quo? Easy-peasy. Finding a concrete alternative that a large majority of those people will agree on? Virtually impossible. Why? Because there can be people opposed to the status quo but for very different, and possibly completely opposite reasons.
If the zealots who protest names, logos, etc. can come up with a specific alternative that they unanimously support, I'm all ears.
*Brexit problem because many are unhappy that Brexit didn't give them all that they hoped; some because they're still too tied to the EU, and some because they're not as connected as they used to be. Sovereignty association problem because the Quebec referendum to give the government "a mandate" to "negotiate" "sovereignty association" almost won by including all those weasel-words and phrases so that voters could have all kinds of different ideas of what they were choosing. A simple question like "Do you want Quebec to be a separate country from Canada?" would have gotten significantly less votes.
Hunh?
This has nothing to do with Brexit.
The "Indians" referred to are Native Americans, sometimes called "First Peoples" in Canada.
The objection to the use of derogatory, white-applied terms like "braves," "squaws," "war-whoops," and the like, have to do with inappropriate attitudes, language, and uses of culturally-inflected apparel like the knock-offs of ceremonial robes and headgear whose use was earned or conferred by position, heritage, or proofs of worthiness within the social group to which they belonged.
It is not referring to the UK, to residents of the southeast Asian Indian subcontinent, or their near-neighbors.
Does that help clarify things?
M.
Quote from: mahagonny on March 20, 2022, 03:43:05 PM
Can a boy be an Indianette? why not?
It is very common for young men to be in something called color guard, which is a component of high school marching bands and is almost overwhelmingly populated by young women. Those bands overwhelmingly associate with the school nickname. Some examples from where I lived were Spartans, Chargers, Tigers, Lions, Panthers etc. The young women sports teams are not referred to as Lionesses or Spartanettes, so no probs.
Quote from: mamselle on March 21, 2022, 08:51:41 AM
Hunh?
This has nothing to do with Brexit.
The "Indians" referred to are Native Americans, sometimes called "First Peoples" in Canada.
The objection to the use of derogatory, white-applied terms like "braves," "squaws," "war-whoops," and the like, have to do with inappropriate attitudes, language, and uses of culturally-inflected apparel like the knock-offs of ceremonial robes and headgear whose use was earned or conferred by position, heritage, or proofs of worthiness within the social group to which they belonged.
It is not referring to the UK, to residents of the southeast Asian Indian subcontinent, or their near-neighbors.
Does that help clarify things?
M.
I would like to see how many things that are changed, renamed, etc. over the next decade because they are deemed "offensive" wind up being
re-renamed in a few decades because the choice they make now becomes unacceptable by some future generation for some reason not even on the radar now. (And, of course, the fact that it isn't on the radar now will be viewed by the future generation as clear evidence of just how horrible people are now.)
What's missing here is clearly defined property rights.
Pass a law granting ownership of certain words -- trademarks -- to specific groups -- tribes or the collective of Native Americans. They could then rent out their use if they wish.
Anybody who thought the words were offensive could buy the right to them and not use it.
We could do the same with things, such as headdress.
1965 "colored person"
in between, a bunch of stuff
2015 "person of color"
nearly identical terms
It's not the literal meaning of the term that makes the term wrong or right according to the ones who know what is best for us. It's who's been using it. When the conservatives started saying such things as 'black person' or 'African American person' the terms needed banning.
Idiot.
M.
Quote from: dismalist on March 21, 2022, 09:54:03 AM
What's missing here is clearly defined property rights.
Pass a law granting ownership of certain words -- trademarks -- to specific groups -- tribes or the collective of Native Americans. They could then rent out their use if they wish.
Anybody who thought the words were offensive could buy the right to them and not use it.
We could do the same with things, such as headdress.
This is what the Hells Angels motorcycle club have done.
Some schools try harder than others. Miami of Ohio has worked closely with the Miami, which only have one recognized tribal council. Miami in Florida has also tried, but its situation is more complicated. BoTh universities have official MoAs, but below is the issue (in a nutshell copied and pasted from the authoritative source, Wikipedia.
"In the 1980s and 1990s, when mascots based on Native Americans became more controversial and many Native Americans and supporters protested their use, Florida State consulted with the Seminole Tribe of Florida, emphasizing that Osceola was never intended to be demeaning. Several representatives of the Seminole Tribe, including Chairman James E. Billie and Council Member Max Osceola, have given FSU their blessing to use Osceola and Seminole imagery.[2]: 143–145 [6] However, the matter remains controversial for other Florida Seminoles, as well as members of the Seminole Tribe of Oklahoma.[4][6][2]: 145–147 Critics have noted a political undercurrent in the support from Florida Seminole leaders, who are heavily involved in business ventures such as Indian casinos in the state.[4] In 2005, the NCAA added FSU to a list of schools facing potential sanctions for using "hostile and abusive" Indian mascots and names; after much deliberation, the NCAA gave FSU an exemption, citing the university's relationship with the Seminole Tribe of Florida as a major factor.[6][7]"
Quote from: jimbogumbo on March 21, 2022, 04:07:52 PM
Some schools try harder than others. Miami of Ohio has worked closely with the Miami, which only have one recognized tribal council. Miami in Florida has also tried, but its situation is more complicated. BoTh universities have official MoAs, but below is the issue (in a nutshell copied and pasted from the authoritative source, Wikipedia.
"In the 1980s and 1990s, when mascots based on Native Americans became more controversial and many Native Americans and supporters protested their use, Florida State consulted with the Seminole Tribe of Florida, emphasizing that Osceola was never intended to be demeaning. Several representatives of the Seminole Tribe, including Chairman James E. Billie and Council Member Max Osceola, have given FSU their blessing to use Osceola and Seminole imagery.[2]: 143–145 [6] However, the matter remains controversial for other Florida Seminoles, as well as members of the Seminole Tribe of Oklahoma.[4][6][2]: 145–147 Critics have noted a political undercurrent in the support from Florida Seminole leaders, who are heavily involved in business ventures such as Indian casinos in the state.[4] In 2005, the NCAA added FSU to a list of schools facing potential sanctions for using "hostile and abusive" Indian mascots and names; after much deliberation, the NCAA gave FSU an exemption, citing the university's relationship with the Seminole Tribe of Florida as a major factor.[6][7]"
Yeah, there's no ownership there, just some people trying to make nice. That's hard to work out in large group situations. It's not like a couple of friends dividing up things.
If there were ownership -- and it would take a law to do it, whereas Hells Angels worked on existing trademark law -- the Native Americans could decide if they wanted to sell, and all others if they wished to buy, including those who think the names and symbols are being used offensively. Then, things like the NCAA needn't even get involved.
My guess is that price would not be all
that high, at least in general.
He may be an idiot, possibly-- certainly his activities here are oftentimes challenging. That said, he is not wrong that there really is no substantive linguistic difference between 'colored person' and 'person of color'.
Quote from: kaysixteen on March 21, 2022, 06:32:21 PM
He may be an idiot, possibly-- certainly his activities here are oftentimes challenging. That said, he is not wrong that there really is no substantive linguistic difference between 'colored person' and 'person of color'.
The difference is that you want to lead with the person, not their category. For example, a person with disabilities is person first. A disabled person is defined by the feature that makes them "other."
Kill hypotheses, not people.
If it's not too much to ask, professor:
Quote from: kaysixteen on March 21, 2022, 06:32:21 PM
He They may be an idiot, possibly-- certainly his their activities here are oftentimes challenging. That said, he is they are not wrong that there really is no substantive linguistic difference between 'colored person' and 'person of color'.
Nobody hangs that male privilege rap on me.
Quote from: kaysixteen on March 21, 2022, 06:32:21 PM
He may be an idiot, possibly-- certainly his activities here are oftentimes challenging. That said, he is not wrong that there really is no substantive linguistic difference between 'colored person' and 'person of color'.
Call people what they want to be called (which changes over time)-- is that really so hard to understand?
What we should call people is not about "substantive linguistic difference", it's about connotation. Terms for out-groups invariably go through a cycle where what starts as a neutral term comes to be used as an epithet, and thus has to be replaced with a new term. It doesn't matter that the old term used to be fine-- once it is cooped as a slur you can't argue it is OK for the majority to use, because the meaning has changed. That's just the way language works. Of course, sometimes a term is re-claimed for use
within a group, as a way of partially defanging it, which still doesn't make it OK for the majority to use.
Let's use another example that might help make this clearer (or not, I don't know). To Yiddish speakers, "yid" just means Jew-- a perfectly fine, everyday word, which made it's way into immigrant English as such. But then it got taken by anti-semites as a slur. Clearly, if a non-Jew uses it today, their connotation and intent are clear, and anything but benign. If they were to say it has "no substantive linguistic difference to "Jew, so what's the problem" everyone would hopefully easily recognize that as a bad faith argument. And, at the same time, like the n-word in the Black community, it has been reclaimed by many Jews for use within the community. So, as a non-Black Jew, I can use it, but I certainly can't use the n-word. There is no contradiction between these things, because, again, that's how language works-- connotation matters, and changes with time, and depends on who you are.
Quote from: Puget on March 21, 2022, 07:11:29 PM
Call people what they want to be called (which changes over time)-- is that really so hard to understand?
Of course I do that if the occasion arises, but I can't remember the last time I discussed race with anyone. I can't think of any reason to.
Find a place on the forum where I used the term 'colored person.' 3415 posts. Put the coffee on. You'll be up late.
Looks like nowadays nobody really cares what word is used, except that Black has majorly survived. Negro, never meant in condescension, has not.
https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=colored+people%2C+negro%2C+black%2Cafrican+american%2C+people+of+color&year_start=1800&year_end=2019&corpus=26&smoothing=3&direct_url=t1%3B%2Ccolored%20people%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2Cnegro%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2Cblack%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2Cafrican%20american%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2Cpeople%20of%20color%3B%2Cc0 (https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=colored+people%2C+negro%2C+black%2Cafrican+american%2C+people+of+color&year_start=1800&year_end=2019&corpus=26&smoothing=3&direct_url=t1%3B%2Ccolored%20people%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2Cnegro%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2Cblack%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2Cafrican%20american%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2Cpeople%20of%20color%3B%2Cc0)
I infer that a small segment of the population is propagating its preferred usage, and that no one else cares.
White college educated women are the critical mass behind the woke mania. Black people care less than they do which term white people use.
ETA: ...I suspect (though I'm not proving it.) As Dr. Shelby Steele used to explain, the white privilege confession was never about helping black people get anywhere. It is an attempt by certain white people to feel that they are innocent about America's past.
At this point there's not much substantive linguistic difference between "Republican" and "racist", either, but they sure hate one of those perfectly accurate descriptions.
Language and language use aren't neutral.
Quote from: ciao_yall on March 21, 2022, 06:34:07 PM
Quote from: kaysixteen on March 21, 2022, 06:32:21 PM
He may be an idiot, possibly-- certainly his activities here are oftentimes challenging. That said, he is not wrong that there really is no substantive linguistic difference between 'colored person' and 'person of color'.
The difference is that you want to lead with the person, not their category. For example, a person with disabilities is person first. A disabled person is defined by the feature that makes them "other."
So why are there still "white people", rather than "people who are white"?
Quote from: marshwiggle on March 22, 2022, 05:02:36 AM
Quote from: ciao_yall on March 21, 2022, 06:34:07 PM
Quote from: kaysixteen on March 21, 2022, 06:32:21 PM
He may be an idiot, possibly-- certainly his activities here are oftentimes challenging. That said, he is not wrong that there really is no substantive linguistic difference between 'colored person' and 'person of color'.
The difference is that you want to lead with the person, not their category. For example, a person with disabilities is person first. A disabled person is defined by the feature that makes them "other."
So why are there still "white people", rather than "people who are white"?
'People guilty of whiteness.' There, solved that one for you.
Quote from: mahagonny on March 21, 2022, 07:31:35 PM
Of course I do that if the occasion arises, but I can't remember the last time I discussed race with anyone. I can't think of any reason to.
And that, my friends, is the white-privilege-iest white-privilege that ever white-privileged.
Quote from: ciao_yall on March 22, 2022, 06:39:10 AM
Quote from: mahagonny on March 21, 2022, 07:31:35 PM
Of course I do that if the occasion arises, but I can't remember the last time I discussed race with anyone. I can't think of any reason to.
And that, my friends, is the white-privilege-iest white-privilege that ever white-privileged.
Wait, you left out violence. C'mon, give people a little credit.
Quote from: ciao_yall on March 22, 2022, 06:39:10 AM
Quote from: mahagonny on March 21, 2022, 07:31:35 PM
Of course I do that if the occasion arises, but I can't remember the last time I discussed race with anyone. I can't think of any reason to.
And that, my friends, is the white-privilege-iest white-privilege that ever white-privileged.
I'd guess Klan gatherings discuss race a lot. Does that mean they lack white privilege?
Quote from: marshwiggle on March 22, 2022, 07:55:53 AM
Quote from: ciao_yall on March 22, 2022, 06:39:10 AM
Quote from: mahagonny on March 21, 2022, 07:31:35 PM
Of course I do that if the occasion arises, but I can't remember the last time I discussed race with anyone. I can't think of any reason to.
And that, my friends, is the white-privilege-iest white-privilege that ever white-privileged.
I'd guess Klan gatherings discuss race a lot. Does that mean they lack white privilege?
Yes. Morgan Freeman has been hoarding the right to not talk about race, or inform people he doesn't want to talk about it any more.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fcLj2CVC1VU
Although if he chose to belong to my faculty union in order to improve his wages, there goes his right to not talk about race. Because they claim all of us support something called Black Lives Matter, which talks about race constantly, except when they're setting police cars on fire and counting their money.
re white privilege:
Quote from: mahagonny on March 21, 2022, 07:53:48 PM
It is an attempt by certain white people to feel that they are innocent about America's past.
I'm sorry, but that is just plain bs. I don't care if it is just you saying that with the suspect, or an actual paraphrase of something Shelby Steele say (hard to tell from the above).
So you're wondering if I heard Shelby Steele right or not? I wouldn't bother. He said something nice about Governor Tim Scott. So screw him.
White privilege?
Nay, White achievement! First and foremost, ending slavery. Second, the Enlightenment, and third, Capitalism. Together have made us, decidedly including the so-called underprivileged, far better off than we have ever been before.
To say it in a way germane to present day politics:
"Democrats haven't been this angry since Republicans freed the slaves."
Black as well as white abolitionists' work led to the end of slavery.
Stripping Frederick Douglass of agency isn't very historically accurate.
M.
Quote from: mamselle on March 22, 2022, 06:43:25 PM
Black as well as white abolitionists' work led to the end of slavery.
Stripping Frederick Douglass of agency isn't very historically accurate.
M.
The British had local Whites pay to compensate slave owners in the colonies -- slavery had been deemed illegal at home by judicial interpretation of existing law earlier.
The South had to be beaten to end slavery in these parts, as there was no question of compensation entertained. Now compensate the dead White union soldiers.
It's fine to advocate; it's another thing to pay or die.
I'm confused.
Are you saying blacks didn't die in the effort to end slavery?
For starters, there's the whole system, which was deadly and vituperative, especially towards those who tried to leave.
Whites would have not been aware of the issues if folks like Douglass had not worked as they did to inform them.
Those whites who were "compensated" for their "losses" are not known to have compensated the blacks whose lives they stole to begin with.
And then there were the 54th regiment and others....
So, not sure where the own-back-patting comes from.
M.
Quote from: mahagonny on March 22, 2022, 09:58:02 AM
Yes. Morgan Freeman has been hoarding the right to not talk about race, or inform people he doesn't want to talk about it any more.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fcLj2CVC1VU
Although if he chose to belong to my faculty union in order to improve his wages, there goes his right to not talk about race. Because they claim all of us support something called Black Lives Matter, which talks about race constantly, except when they're setting police cars on fire and counting their money.
Eh...Morgan Freeman definitely talks about race, and that includes promoting Black Lives Matter.
'Freeman: Racism Fuels Tea Party'https://www.cnn.com/videos/us/2011/09/23/piers-morgan-freeman-tea-party-racism.cnn
'Morgan Freeman to share people's experiences of racism on his social platforms'https://www.nme.com/news/film/morgan-freeman-share-peoples-experiences-racism-social-platforms-2682978
Facebook post"You are never too old to have a revelation. #blacklivesmatter"
https://www.facebook.com/MorganFreeman/photos/a.230075090408483/2995998643816100/?type=3
'Morgan Freeman tackles police brutality with new film'"Actor Morgan Freeman is bringing the conversation about racism and police brutality to the big screen, as the executive producer of "The Killing of Kenneth Chamberlain."
https://www.reuters.com/video/watch/idRCV00A84A
Facebook post promoting the Freedom to Vote ActIncludes an ACLU link which says "The Freedom to Vote: John R. Lewis Act includes crucial provisions to restore the protections of the Voting Rights Act that will begin to root out voting barriers that discriminate against voters of color."
https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=511795803483999&ref=sharing
All of these things date after the 60 Minutes interview where he said, "Stop talking about it."
Quote from: mahagonny on March 22, 2022, 05:31:43 PM
So you're wondering if I heard Shelby Steele right or not? I wouldn't bother. He said something nice about Governor Tim Scott. So screw him.
Nice deflect. I was only making a statement about the statement I quoted. I disagree that it is true, and don't have any bone to pick regarding Shelby Steele. It is the statement I disagree with. I also happen to respect Sen. Scott.
You simply cannot engage honestly.
1) who gets to decide what terms are to be used, even with the membership of a not necessarily monolithic 'in group, cf. 'Latinx'?
2) what would be the justification for berating or rebuking older folks who have not yet gotten with the program, esp those lacking the education, social circles connections, etc., to be aware of the new preferences?
Oh, why not? I'm consciously throwing oil on the fire here...
Fact-checking of some seriously inane questions re: the newly nominated Supreme Court Justice's record:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jm3nph9F_2Y
Might as well mix it up; clearly the subtext has little to do with her qualifications....
M.
Quote from: kaysixteen on March 23, 2022, 11:37:05 AM
1) who gets to decide what terms are to be used, even with the membership of a not necessarily monolithic 'in group, cf. 'Latinx'?
2) what would be the justification for berating or rebuking older folks who have not yet gotten with the program, esp those lacking the education, social circles connections, etc., to be aware of the new preferences?
That is about the most arrogant, ageist, classist view of differences of opinion.
(Maybe you meant it sarcastically; if so, it's right on.)
As though the younger generation is inherently "right".
The older people would probably say the younger ones need to grow up and then
their opinions will change (which has a lot of historical support).
Apples and kumquats.
The "younger generation" is not always, maybe not even not often, or usually, the ones who generate the "new ideas" you're complaining about.
In my experience youth are often more resistant to change and less ideologically flexible than their more nimble grandsires--at least, less agile than the ones who keep up, think things through, and don't just turn into bitter, grumpy trolls yelling at the TV.
M.
QuoteIn my experience youth are often more resistant to change and less ideologically flexible than their more nimble grandsires--at least, less agile than the ones who keep up, think things through, and don't just turn into bitter, grumpy trolls yelling at the TV.
What a tired cliché that is. (my italics)
Believing American society is racist against blacks is bitterness. Progressives think it's an uplifting revelation, but then again, they are doing a kind of religious sacrament.
ETA:
Quote from: jimbogumbo on March 23, 2022, 10:09:40 AM
Quote from: mahagonny on March 22, 2022, 05:31:43 PM
So you're wondering if I heard Shelby Steele right or not? I wouldn't bother. He said something nice about Governor Tim Scott. So screw him.
Nice deflect. I was only making a statement about the statement I quoted. I disagree that it is true, and don't have any bone to pick regarding Shelby Steele. It is the statement I disagree with. I also happen to respect Sen. Scott.
You simply cannot engage honestly.
Shelby Steele and Sen. Scott do not like what you are doing, namely, focusing on racial victimhood identity as a way to improve life in the USA for black people. If that's not you, then good, but I'd be pretty surprised.
Quote from: mahagonny on March 23, 2022, 01:03:25 PM
QuoteIn my experience youth are often more resistant to change and less ideologically flexible than their more nimble grandsires--at least, less agile than the ones who keep up, think things through, and don't just turn into bitter, grumpy trolls yelling at the TV.
What a tired cliché that is. (my italics)
Believing American society is racist against blacks is bitterness. Progressives think it's an uplifting revelation, but then again, they are doing a kind of religious sacrament.
ETA:
Quote from: jimbogumbo on March 23, 2022, 10:09:40 AM
Quote from: mahagonny on March 22, 2022, 05:31:43 PM
So you're wondering if I heard Shelby Steele right or not? I wouldn't bother. He said something nice about Governor Tim Scott. So screw him.
Nice deflect. I was only making a statement about the statement I quoted. I disagree that it is true, and don't have any bone to pick regarding Shelby Steele. It is the statement I disagree with. I also happen to respect Sen. Scott.
You simply cannot engage honestly.
Shelby Steele and Sen. Scott do not like what you are doing, namely, focusing on racial victimhood identity as a way to improve life in the USA for black people. If that's not you, then good, but I'd be pretty surprised.
Well. Still not engaging honestly, I see.
First, using a cliche, you don't know me. Your surprise is misplaced. Second, I am confident you speak for neither Shelby Steele nor Sen. Scott.
FTR, I don't know you; might enjoy a drink with you. Your online persona here, however can KMA. It is a cesspool of word salad, garbage, and arguments that could be mistaken for those of a callow freshman with no sense of logic.
Hope we are clear.
Mods: do with me what you wish.
I wasn't really trying to be sarcastic. I meant what I said, and do not intend to condescend or denigrate the older, less educated/ socially connected/ urbane people I alluded to. These people deserve to have respect shown them, and not rebuked or berated for failing to get with the latest faddest program eminating from the faculty lounges of Cambridge and Berkeley. And if the denizens of the latter types of places do *not* show this respect, the backlash this will engender is just more fodder for Trump and his ilk, with these folks essentially saying 'bleep you, libtards'.
Quote from: kaysixteen on March 23, 2022, 10:29:41 PM
I wasn't really trying to be sarcastic. I meant what I said, and do not intend to condescend or denigrate the older, less educated/ socially connected/ urbane people I alluded to. These people deserve to have respect shown them, and not rebuked or berated for failing to get with the latest faddest program eminating from the faculty lounges of Cambridge and Berkeley. And if the denizens of the latter types of places do *not* show this respect, the backlash this will engender is just more fodder for Trump and his ilk, with these folks essentially saying 'bleep you, libtards'.
I understood your comment as you intended it.
Quote
Well. Still not engaging honestly, I see.
I don't know what you want me to do.
I do not 'speak for Dr. Steele;' certainly not. I never studied with him. I think I understand his message and it speaks to me.
As I understand him, he believes that
1. In the aftermath of the civil rights movement white America, consumed with guilt, lost its moral confidence
2. Black America has suffered the effects of low expectations and a shrinking sense of agency as white America has tried to redeem itself by throwing government programs at the problem of economic inequality
3. While slavery and Jim Crow were horrible moral failings, America nevertheless had a well developed moral sense from the outset in many ways, unacknowledged today
4. Black America suffers especially from the weakening of the nuclear family
5. Whites today are reluctant to criticize any behavior of a black person even when it's errant, and this is not helping anyone.
6. A young black American today has opportunities for success.
QuoteFTR, I don't know you; might enjoy a drink with you. Your online persona here, however can KMA. It is a cesspool of word salad, garbage, and arguments that could be mistaken for those of a callow freshman with no sense of logic.
There's no word salad. Don't be silly.
Academic thinking around race today frightens me. I admit that.
ETA: Part of their situation is the tenure track itself is too white. Whatever else should be concerning, or not, the optics are bad. I don't know what they can do about it.
Quote from: kaysixteen on March 23, 2022, 10:29:41 PM
I wasn't really trying to be sarcastic. I meant what I said, and do not intend to condescend or denigrate the older, less educated/ socially connected/ urbane people I alluded to. These people deserve to have respect shown them, and not rebuked or berated for failing to get with the latest faddest program eminating from the faculty lounges of Cambridge and Berkeley. And if the denizens of the latter types of places do *not* show this respect, the backlash this will engender is just more fodder for Trump and his ilk, with these folks essentially saying 'bleep you, libtards'.
I believe Churchill said something like
"A man who is not a liberal at 20 has no heart, and a man who is not a conservative at 40 has no head".
There are logical reasons that older people
don't "get with the program", many of which reflect the lack of common sense and experience of the world that well-meaning idealistic young people exhibit.
It's a line that's been attributed to a lot of people, kind of like "There are lies, damned lies, and statistics."
You are right, but the impetus for the language revisionism I am criticizing is not a young people/ older people phenomenon. It is largely a result of differences in education, social class, and closed-bubble social circies. And the tendency of folks to look down on those who differ from them in these areas.
The people in the group referred to as "Latinx" mostly don't like the term. I suspect the people who choose the new terms are all political left, which more and more Latinos are not. But why don't they like it? Ask them. Maybe they feel a lot like I do, namely, society will be pretty much OK as soon as we cease trying to improve it.
https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/many-latinos-say-latinx-offends-or-bothers-them-here-s-ncna1285916
Just imagine a language where every noun has a gender but people who have ovaries or testicles do not. Wait, you don't have to imagine it. It's here!
The COVID testing center at my school now refers to me as "Mx. [Mahagonny's last name]" which I think is a hoot. They didn't ask me. They just went ahead and did it.
ETA: After you've identified a large segment of the populace as 'deplorables' in a ceremonial way, you have no business expecting them to think you want them in your tent. It's simply an effort to suppress the culture of the unwashed at that point.
This is what the people who are into inclusion are doing.
Quote from: mahagonny on March 24, 2022, 03:14:58 PM
The people in the group referred to as "Latinx" mostly don't like the term.
And that's a good reason not to use it.
Finding gender-neutral language in languages that are heavily gendered is very difficult. The compromises are mostly unsatisfying, and it's better to find one that's "natural" to the language in question (which "Latinx" is not). We shouldn't be surprised, of course, if early attempts meet with resistance--remember when we used "gay" as a derogatory term, as in "that's so gay"? We don't any more, but there was a lot of resistance to the shift at first, including from putative allies, because that use was deeply ingrained in the culture. But it isn't any more, and I think you'd be hard-pressed to find people who think it's still okay.
With respect to war bonnets, racist chants and the like, I'll just note that Indigenous communities have been unified and consistent in calling them out as offensive for
decades now. Issues of cultural appropriation aren't always clear-cut, but this one is about as close as it gets.
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on March 25, 2022, 08:46:12 AM
Finding gender-neutral language in languages that are heavily gendered is very difficult. The compromises are mostly unsatisfying, and it's better to find one that's "natural" to the language in question (which "Latinx" is not). We shouldn't be surprised, of course, if early attempts meet with resistance--remember when we used "gay" as a derogatory term, as in "that's so gay"? We don't any more, but there was a lot of resistance to the shift at first, including from putative allies, because that use was deeply ingrained in the culture. But it isn't any more, and I think you'd be hard-pressed to find people who think it's still okay.
Yet our campus is presenting a series of 'healing sessions' for people who don't feel included in the community because they are homosexual. One of my best friends is gay, and she won't be going. She's one of the strongest, most self assured people I know. She doesn't need it.
The healing sessions are more for the woke community to meet, band and celebrate their activism and superior sense of their moral selves than they are there to treat any actual hurt being suffered by faculty.
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on March 25, 2022, 08:46:12 AM
Quote from: mahagonny on March 24, 2022, 03:14:58 PM
The people in the group referred to as "Latinx" mostly don't like the term.
And that's a good reason not to use it.
Finding gender-neutral language in languages that are heavily gendered is very difficult.
And very arrogant for people
not from the corresponding culture to try and impose on it for
their own ideological reasons.
There are interesting dialogues going on around French, for example.
Some efforts to create blended pronouns and ungendered definite/indefinite articles seem to be emerging from within parts of the francophone/francophil community.
https://theconversation.com/no-need-to-iel-why-france-is-so-angry-about-a-gender-neutral-pronoun-173304
Iel, anyone?
;--}
M.
Why doesn't the woke movement then simply work to cancel French, Spanish, Portuguese, Russian et al then? It would seem, by their definition, English has the least oppression in it.
ETA: Or at least identify those languages as unacceptable.
Quote from: mahagonny on March 25, 2022, 03:00:34 PM
Why doesn't the woke movement then simply work to cancel French, Spanish, Portuguese, Russian et al then? It would seem, by their definition, English has the least oppression in it.
ETA: Or at least identify those languages as unacceptable.
Plenty of languages have a neuter gender. English struggles a bit there, too, although it benefits from not having gendered nouns.
Besides, those languages
have been cancelled at any number of Anglophone universities, and sometimes in the broader culture too (remember freedom fries?). Beyond that sort of triviality, the answer is, of course, obvious.
Some have no feminine/masculine pronoun at all. Hungarian, for example. Many of my math colleagues who grew up speaking Hungarian never got the hang of she/he at all.
Quote from: jimbogumbo on March 25, 2022, 03:50:58 PM
Some have no feminine/masculine pronoun at all. Hungarian, for example. Many of my math colleagues who grew up speaking Hungarian never got the hang of she/he at all.
The woke should require everyone to speak Hungarian.
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on March 25, 2022, 03:36:51 PM
Quote from: mahagonny on March 25, 2022, 03:00:34 PM
Why doesn't the woke movement then simply work to cancel French, Spanish, Portuguese, Russian et al then? It would seem, by their definition, English has the least oppression in it.
ETA: Or at least identify those languages as unacceptable.
Plenty of languages have a neuter gender. English struggles a bit there, too, although it benefits from not having gendered nouns.
Besides, those languages have been cancelled at any number of Anglophone universities, and sometimes in the broader culture too (remember freedom fries?). Beyond that sort of triviality, the answer is, of course, obvious.
Not obvious. Well, a couple of guesses. (1) They're leaving it for later. (2) They don't really have an ideological vision. They're just looking for a subterfuge for the more free government money fantasy (3) They're good at thinking up radical visions for societal change, and not quite that good about thinking of the work involved, aside from stealing from retail stores with already broken windows and posting on Facebook.