Political Correctness Run Amok? Part Two

[Captain America]

The Boston City Council wants to stop using the word "minority" in official business because it is outdated and offensive, reports The Boston Globe. City Councilor Charles Yancey wants to use the words "people of color" instead.

In a 12-0 vote, the councilors approved an ordinance banning the city's use of the word to describe people or ethnic groups.

Boston follows San Diego, which decided to stop using the term in April because, as Deputy Mayor George Stevens argued: "The word 'minority' can have such a devastating impact on our young people as well as adults."


Where to begin...

What about 'majority'? Will this term still be used? Using 'majority' implies the existence of a 'minority', doesn't it? So using the term 'majority' could potentially 'have such a devastating impact on our young people as well as adults.'

This would necessitate the creation of a new term.

'People without color'?
'Colorless People'?

I don't know whether to laugh or cry. It's clear I've got alot of work to do.

[Griffin 1]

On 2002-01-14 12:17, Captain America wrote:

"people of color"


White is a color. "Hispanic" is not. Nor are "Jew", "Gay", or "Lesbian".

[The Drunken Actuary]

WOW! This takes the cake. This is ludicrous. People of color is better than minority?? I thought 'colored person' was an antiquated, offensive term anyway. Maybe this is a joke. There's no link.

[Captain America]

Oh boy, Griffin. You are in SUCH trouble if Mr. Yancey reads that. I'll do my best to protect you.

[Pseudolus]

I think "people of color" is fairly current. No, I don't know switching around the order of the words "colored people" makes it somehow better. These things run in fads, like euphamisms for toilet (which originally a euphamism itself). Substituting the phrase du jour for an old, descriptive standby like "minority" will just make the records sound dated as soon as the next fad comes around. Witness "The United Negro College Fund", or the "National Association for the Advancement of Colored People", or Harvard's department of "Afro-American Studies".

[Captain America]

How little you think of me, TDA. The Globe requires membership, but here is an article on FoxNews, which is where I got the quote from in the first place. If Fox is not worthy, a search of 'Yancey' on the Globe's site over a thirty day period yields a summary of the article in question, just to prove it exists. Most people on this board seem to prefer to not have to join a site to read an article, so I didn't bother.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,42899,00.html

_________________
Proud Graduate of DaisyCutter University!

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Captain America on 2002-01-14 12:43 ]</font>

[The Drunken Actuary]

Apologies, I was merely allowing for the possibility that you were mislead. But I see now that it's all on the up & up.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: tda on 2002-01-14 13:25 ]</font>

[Captain America]

No need to apologize!

[Traci]

Once again - an attempt to do something small and simple is met with sneers.

What is the big deal?

Let's say I have a long and hard to pronounce name. So, for busines purposes, I use a nickname.

It would be a simple gesture for my employer to use the name *I* have chosen instead of ciming up with one that I don't care for and using it - even after I've told them that I don't like it and prefer to be called something else.

"People of color" is the phrase of the times. It seems to be agreed upon by most of the people to whom it refers - so why not use it? If another phrase becomes more popular in a few years - change - what's the big deal?

[Jala]

On 2002-01-14 14:02, Traci - Admin wrote:
Let's say I have a long and hard to pronounce name. So, for busines purposes, I use a nickname.

"Minority" is not long or hard to pronounce.


It would be a simple gesture for my employer to use the name *I* have chosen instead of ciming up with one that I don't care for and using it - even after I've told them that I don't like it and prefer to be called something else.

How frequently do you realistically expect your employer to change what you are called?

[The Drunken Actuary]

I did not realize that all peoples generally thought of as minorities (gays, lesbians, jews, (even women sometimes) asians, hispanics, african-americans, etc) agree to the term 'people of color'. If that is the case, I have no problem with it. I do wonder why the term minority has become offensive. And I'm a bit nervous that I may use some formerly innocuous term that is suddenly offensive unbeknownst to me.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: TDA on 2002-01-14 14:10 ]</font>

[Pseudolus]

"It seems to be agreed upon by most of the people to whom it refers"

Does it?

"Black" seems more common among most MOTGUD*, while I hear the phrase "Person of Color" mostly used by GWLs**. And Oprah.



* "Members Of The Group Under Discussion"

** "Guilty White Liberals"

[Traci]

""""Minority" is not long or hard to pronounce. """

No - but "African, Hispanic, Jimaican, Polynesian, Chinese, Japanese, Half-this/Half that ...." IS long and still not usually adequate.

Again - if you are referring to ME - it seems only simply considerate that you would use a name that I agree with.


"""How frequently do you realistically expect your employer to change what you are called?""""

As many times as I change what I call myself! Certainly every decade does not seem unreasonable.

To refuse to use a name that I agree with is a sign that you do not respect me.

[Guerilla poster]

Traci, don't you realize that the rightacrats on this board spend most of their time talking about bullcrap issues such as the race of statues and the proper word to call different races than about the real issues. I think they listen too much right wing talk radio.

[Traci]

""" I did not realize that all peoples generally thought of as minorities (gays, lesbians, jews, (even women sometimes) asians, hispanics, african-americans, etc) agree to the term 'people of color'. """

No one is saying that. I believe "People of color" refers to those who have more melanin in their skin than your average joe of European descent.

"""I do wonder why the term minority has become offensive."""

Perhaps because it denotes a "sub" class.

Also - "People of color" could soon outnumber "whites" - and in some places they already do. So the word really should be replaced.

Unless of course you are threatened by the notion of being outnumbered by people with darker skin - and so you want to keep the word in place to remind them of their status .... naaaa, that's not it!

[Indep]

I would refer to people who spend their time (at work) on these boards complaining about all the taxes that they have to pay greedy b******s, but they probably don't like the term, so I don't. What's the big deal? It's insignificant.

You could say it's as dumb as not remembering to chew your food, but that'd be an exaggeration.

[Jala]

On 2002-01-14 14:16, Traci - Admin wrote:
""""Minority" is not long or hard to pronounce. """

No - but "African, Hispanic, Jimaican, Polynesian, Chinese, Japanese, Half-this/Half that ...." IS long and still not usually adequate.

None of these words are long or hard to pronounce. Regardless, "minority" is the word being discussed.


"""How frequently do you realistically expect your employer to change what you are called?""""

As many times as I change what I call myself! Certainly every decade does not seem unreasonable.

Then you're bound to go far in your company.


To refuse to use a name that I agree with is a sign that you do not respect me.

Thinking that you are going to solve some problem by changing your name is a sign that you do not respect yourself.

[Traci]

If you MEAN to be disrespectul - that's different! :smile:

[Jala]

On 2002-01-14 14:28, Traci - Admin wrote:
Unless of course you are threatened by the notion of being outnumbered by people with darker skin - and so you want to keep the word in place to remind them of their status .... naaaa, that's not it!

That's it, imply your opponent is racist. That'll prove your point!

[Jala]

On 2002-01-14 14:32, Indep wrote:
I would refer to people who spend their time (at work) on these boards complaining about all the taxes that they have to pay greedy b******s, but they probably don't like the term, so I don't. What's the big deal? It's insignificant.

When "minority" becomes well-accepted as a vulgarity, then maybe you'll have a point.

[Traci]

"""Then you're bound to go far in your company. """

Thank you! I work for people who have enough respect for me to call me "Mary Ann" if I wanted them to!


"""Thinking that you are going to solve some problem by changing your name is a sign that you do not respect yourself."""

Who said that anyone thought it would solve ANY bigger-picture problem?

All it solves is the problem of continuing to refer to people by a term that offends them. It's a matter of simple courtesy.

To NOT change the term WOULD constitute a NEW problem - because it would reveal an attitude that perpetuates the bigger-picture issues.

[The Drunken Actuary]

On 2002-01-14 14:28, Traci - Admin wrote:
""" I did not realize that all peoples generally thought of as minorities (gays, lesbians, jews, (even women sometimes) asians, hispanics, african-americans, etc) agree to the term 'people of color'. """

No one is saying that. I believe "People of color" refers to those who have more melanin in their skin than your average joe of European descent.

But they are replacing the term minority with 'people of color'. Since minority refers to all of those peoples, they are saying it refers to people other than those mith more melanin.

"""I do wonder why the term minority has become offensive."""

Perhaps because it denotes a "sub" class.

No it does not.

Also - "People of color" could soon outnumber "whites" - and in some places they already do. So the word really should be replaced.

If that is the case the word that should replace it is 'majority'

Unless of course you are threatened by the notion of being outnumbered by people with darker skin - and so you want to keep the word in place to remind them of their status .... naaaa, that's not it!

No, I am not threatened by that possibility and resent the implication.


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: TDA on 2002-01-14 14:48 ]</font>

[Indep]

On 2002-01-14 14:37, Jala wrote:

On 2002-01-14 14:32, Indep wrote:
I would refer to people who spend their time (at work) on these boards complaining about all the taxes that they have to pay greedy b******s, but they probably don't like the term, so I don't. What's the big deal? It's insignificant.

When "minority" becomes well-accepted as a vulgarity, then maybe you'll have a point.


That's the whole point. If it's considered offensive, don't use it. What's the big deal? At one time all racial slurs were considered ok in public. That day is gone.

I don't think many people are actually that sensitive to the word "minority" now, anyway. I feel like your going to take one example that no one has even heard about (except Rush, where you probably heard about it, and laughed) and use it to explain why we should drill for oil in Alaska. Or why Microsoft's monopoly is ok in a Free-Market.

There are bigger things that you could be worried about!!!

[Indep]

"No, I am not threatened by that possibility and resent the implication."

Then you're a bigger man than old Pat, the isolationist.

[The Drunken Actuary]

Doesn't take much to do that.

[Guerilla poster]

Pat was all over Tv this weekend. He is quite funny, he actually seemed to imply several times that democracy is a bad thing.

[Traci]

"""But they are replacing the term minority with 'people of color'. Since minority refers to all of those peoples, they are saying it refers to people other than those mith more melanin. """

My take is that they are only replacing it in the applicable circumstances. I doubt anyone expects the term "people of color" to refer to all Jews, Gays, Lesbians etc.


"""Perhaps because it denotes a "sub" class.

No it does not. """

I believe it can. What a word denotes is often in the eyes of the beholder - and often has little to do with literal meaning.

To replace it with "majority" would not work. Since it would depend upon circumstances. Sometimes "people of color" will be a majority and sometimes not. Makes more sense to me to a) use something more descriptive and b) use a term that does not offend those to whom it refers.

Someone has yet to explain why this should be a big deal.

[The Drunken Actuary]

Its not really a big deal, just something to shoot the crap about. If the article said they were replacing african-american or 'people with less melanin than the average Joe of Eurpoean decent' with 'people of color' I wouldn't have a comment. However, it said they were replacing 'minority' which, as stated previously, refers to lots of people (some with lots of melanin, some with none). Well I guess only albinos have none. But they're a minority so I wonder how they would feel about the term 'people of color.' Crack myself up sometimes. :lol:

[Captain America]

This is an example of an inexcusable cheap shot:

Unless of course you are threatened by the notion of being outnumbered by people with darker skin - and so you want to keep the word in place to remind them of their status .... naaaa, that's not it!


To me, the point is that it's silly. I wouldn't argue with one person having their own personal preferences. But these people have written it into 'law'. 'Devastating impact' seems a bit much.

And who's complaining about taxes?

[Dr T Non-Fan]

I'll call you "Dr T." Until I get what I believe is best for all. Even for minorities such as those who pass exams!

Is it true that "minority" can be used in other contexts? That's what I read above, though I can't remember (and don't want to go back a page and possibly lose my comments) whether that was in Boston or San Diego.
How about calling people "citizens," and treating them all with equal respect (until determined otherwise)?

[Pseudolus]

On 2002-01-14 15:54, Dr T Non-Fan wrote:

How about calling people "citizens," and treating them all with equal respect (until determined otherwise)?


That would deprive people like Councilman Yancey their entire reason for existance! Not very compassionate of you, DTNF.

[Indep]

And who's complaining about taxes?



Look at your footer. Vader and the tax crew? Please, too much star trek and star wars!

It's a silly law to me, simply because I'm not offended by "minority". Is it silly to everyone, I guess not. Who cares? It's an attempt (seems like a poor attempt, but an attempt none-the-less) to be sensitive to others feelings. If that's the worst thing in the world, we're doing well.

[Anonymous]

Will "People of Color" refer to all (formerly refered to as) "minorities." That would make some sense. Women are often times colorful. Some would claim gay and lesbian folk could be considered colorful (Rainbow Coalition etc.) People of the Jewish faith I am not very familiar with. Often times people of Asian decent are colorful when wearing traditional clothes (We all remember how colorful Dubya looked when he visited China and was gifted the snazzy appearal.) Assuming that Jewish people are also colorful, I think "People of Color" is a very clever way to include everybody.

The other option give each former minority their own title would get afwully confusing. "People of gayness", "People of female sex", "People of the Jewish faith", "People of Asian-ness"... These would certainly be adequate, but I can for see many problems. For instance, what if a new group who's membership is less than a given majority comes onto the scene but has not yet been given an official "People of" designation. Can you imagine the confusion (let alone the hurt feelings when someone accidently refers to them as a minority.)

I think those "People of Boston" are making the right move.

[The Drunken Actuary]

As a person of another city, I'm sure you're right.

[Dr T Non-Fan]

Well, some sacrifices have to be made. The good of all, blah, blah.

[Indep]

On 2002-01-14 15:00, Guerilla poster wrote:
Pat was all over Tv this weekend. He is quite funny, he actually seemed to imply several times that democracy is a bad thing.


It is, when you're in the minority. Which is the "horrifying reality" that pat's projecting.

[Zee]

On 2002-01-14 14:16, Traci - Admin wrote:
""""Minority" is not long or hard to pronounce. """

No - but "African, Hispanic, Jimaican, Polynesian, Chinese, Japanese, Half-this/Half that ...." IS long and still not usually adequate.


It's funny that you think a more generic term is MORE adequate than the descriptive terms you list.

[Zee]

On 2002-01-14 14:28, Traci - Admin wrote:
""" I did not realize that all peoples generally thought of as minorities (gays, lesbians, jews, (even women sometimes) asians, hispanics, african-americans, etc) agree to the term 'people of color'. """

No one is saying that. I believe "People of color" refers to those who have more melanin in their skin than your average joe of European descent.


I think there are probably significant numbers of hispanics and asians who probably have less melanin than the average joe you mention.


"""I do wonder why the term minority has become offensive."""

Perhaps because it denotes a "sub" class.

Also - "People of color" could soon outnumber "whites" - and in some places they already do. So the word really should be replaced.

Unless of course you are threatened by the notion of being outnumbered by people with darker skin - and so you want to keep the word in place to remind them of their status .... naaaa, that's not it!


You'll probably apologize for that last part at some point, so I'll skip it.

I do agree with the idea that the term minority carries negative connotations. You'd have to be blind to not at least consider that point.

But, I don't think that the "new and improved" term does much better. It still serves the purpose of labeling, and so will carry connotations with it. I think that this term only makes the users of it feel better, not those that it applies to.

[Dr T Non-Fan]

I think a precedent to require certain words not be used for certain purposes is either:
1) unconstitutional; or
2) something that can be done at a level lower than a City Council vote.
(Or, somewhere in between.)

The problem stems from it being an item to discuss at City Council. Someone's making it a bigger issue than it needs to be, probably because he/she doesn't know a more appropriate method.
"Is there a way to do this without making a complete ass of myself? If so, I don't wnat to know!"

[Anonymous]

On 2002-01-14 17:15, Zee wrote:
I do agree with the idea that the term minority carries negative connotations. You'd have to be blind to not at least consider that point.

But, I don't think that the "new and improved" term does much better. It still serves the purpose of labeling, and so will carry connotations with it. I think that this term only makes the users of it feel better, not those that it applies to.


What is even the purpose of having a name for the collection of groups of minority population status who at various times in the history of this country have been systematically disenfranchised? So that there is one term for all of the people who will benefit from affirmative action legislation, right? Otherwise, there is really no reason for anyone to lump together all people who are not Western European, straight, male, heterosexual, and Christian. All people have equal protection under the laws of the city, yes?

So why not "the affirmatives?"

Problem solved, invoice in the mail, now Boston can go back to talking about how much the Celtics suck.

[The Drunken Actuary]

Makes perfect sense to me.

[aNoNo]

This has been an interesting thread to me.

This thread shows how the current PC correctness celebration of diversity is actually divisive. The United States used to be a melting pot where different ethnic "ingredients" were melded into a Yankee stew.
Not that all Americans should line up like yellow pencils, but there was a lot of common belief in ideas of freedom, working hard to improve your lot in life and help your kids get a start, etc.

The PC emphasis on celebration of diversity is leading to more of a salad bowl society than a melting pot society. People are more worried about what is good for their particular special interest group rather than what is good for the common good.

Is this good? It has not seemed to work too well in the Balkans. Keeping two cultures going in Canada seems to have caused some friction.

Other than Monica-gate, I think Bill Clinton's legacy was how adeptly he played the themes of class/race envy and strife to further his political goals.

[Traci]

"""It's funny that you think a more generic term is MORE adequate than the descriptive terms you list."""

Why is it funny? "People of color" is more adequate than listing every possible descent which might cause one to have a darker skin tone. It's more descriptive than "minority" and shorter than listing them all.

Also - I won't be apologizing. The comment was preceded by "Unless" - which means that you get to decide if it applies to you. If you are not threatened - then it doesn't apply to you.

I was just seeing who would get offended.

[Captain America]

Backpedal if it makes you feel better, but you were implying something and we all know it. It's the "naaaa, that's not it!" that reveals the intent, not the "Unless".


I was just seeing who would get offended.


You're so cute!

I think aNoNo makes excellent points.

[Traci]

"""You're so cute! """

Awwwwww - where's that blushing emoticon???

I never backpedal - at least I try not to. It's easier to doublecheck before posting than to try to take something back.

You're right - I was implying something. I was implying that some people want to keep those with darker skin tones in a position of lower social and/or economic status than those with "white" skin. I was also implying that those who are against ditching the word "minority" as a reference to darker skinned people might want to examine the reason why - and make sure that the first implication is not the reason.

There is no personal accusation of racism anywhere.

[The Drunken Actuary]

On 2002-01-14 19:52, Traci - Admin wrote:
Also - I won't be apologizing. The comment was preceded by "Unless" - which means that you get to decide if it applies to you. If you are not threatened - then it doesn't apply to you.

I was just seeing who would get offended.

I wasn't offended because I feel threatened, I was offended because you implied I might feel threatened.

[Griffin 1]

On 2002-01-14 19:52, Traci - Admin wrote:
It's more descriptive than "minority" and shorter than listing them all.

No, it's less descriptive than "minority". It excludes many groups "not of color" - unless we have two groups:
1) People of Color
2) People Not of Color and Formerly Known as Minority

You're right, this is much shorter and easier to pronounce.

[Griffin 1]

On 2002-01-14 14:02, Traci - Admin wrote:
"People of color" is the phrase of the times. It seems to be agreed upon by most of the people to whom it refers - so why not use it? If another phrase becomes more popular in a few years - change - what's the big deal?

Besides the fact that you have no evidence that it seems to be agreed upon by most of the people to whom it refers, you are violating the "I would have done it this way/They should have done it this way" Principal. It's fine if you wish to use the phrase, "Person of Color", but what right do you have to suggest anyone else should?

[Traci]

"""I was offended because you implied I might feel threatened."""

Hmmm - well - you would only feel threatened if you were a racist. And if you're not a racist, then you wouldn't feel threatened - and therefore would have no reason at all to even consider if the comment should offend you.

And I rather like the salad vs melting pot idea myself. Each ingredient keeps it's own unique flavor and texture, but tossed together with the common bond of a good balsalmic vinegrette and you have something really delicious!

And a much healthier dish than stew anyway. Even if the vinegar that holds it together can be a little bitter to some.

Pass the breadsticks!

[Traci]

"""Besides the fact that you have no evidence that it seems to be agreed upon by most of the people to whom it refers"""

You're right - The use of the term assumes that it is less offensive to those whom it refers.

I suppose we could take a poll.

But I'm guessing someone's already done that.

[The Drunken Actuary]

On 2002-01-14 21:31, Traci - Admin wrote:
"""I was offended because you implied I might feel threatened."""

Hmmm - well - you would only feel threatened if you were a racist. And if you're not a racist, then you wouldn't feel threatened - and therefore would have no reason at all to even consider if the comment should offend you.

Well, I'm not sure what that means or if its true. It kind of sounds like you think only a racist would be offended if you called him a racist. IRL I think that might even be pretty much true. Here, where we do not really know each other, I think perhaps your comment made me concerned that I might be coming across as a racist because I disagreed with the Boston law. Hopefully that is not the case.

[Homer]

Mmmmm ... balsalmic vinegrette

[Dr T Non-Fan]

I'm thinking this affects a lot of previously passed legislation, as well as any pending legislation.
"Minority" is probably not appropriate in the first place. I'm a bit perturbed that the term is used to collect people of certain races as one entity. In some places, this definition of minority becomes a majority.
Changing it to "people of color" isn't any better.
Changes to current legislation should be handled as time permits, and only when necessary.
"People of Color hiring practices"; "People of Color independent contractors"; etc. It seems like a simple idea, to some types of people. It has no place in a City Council meeting, other than to emblazen "racist" stickers on those who oppose it.

[Griffin 1]

On 2002-01-14 21:46, Dr T Non-Fan wrote:
other than to emblazen "racist" stickers on those who oppose it.

As was done in this thread.

[Dr T Non-Fan]

Interesting how these things happen!

[Traci]

"""other than to emblazen "racist" stickers on those who oppose it.

As was done in this thread."""

Again - I accused no one of being a racist.

If you are still hung up on that - well - I can't help you.

[Griffin 1]

On 2002-01-14 14:28, Traci - Admin wrote:
Unless of course you are threatened by the notion of being outnumbered by people with darker skin - and so you want to keep the word in place to remind them of their status .... naaaa, that's not it!


On 2002-01-14 23:50, Traci - Admin wrote:
Again - I accused no one of being a racist.

Not directly.

[Guerilla poster]

To an-no-no's point, I do not believe that the celebration of diversity goes against the American principles of freedom, hard work etc., etc. One can have a celebration of diversity and these things. Of course, people should learn about American history also. It is actually lack of diversity in Quebec that causes the problem. French people tend to talk to only French people so they here no other points of view. The importance is to hear all points of view.

I have know several Quebecois who were very much for an independent Quebec before moving to USA after living here for awhile they all changed their point of view realizing how stupid the whole idea really was.

The problem lies more in race-based quotas and things such as that which separate people based on races. I know I will hear some circular arguments.

[Harry]

Here's an interesting article related to this subject.

http://espn.go.com/page2/s/wiley/020115.html

[Rockhound]

I agree that the Boston city council should stop using the term "minority". Why can't they just refer to "citizens", or "people in our city"? Shouldn't they be making laws targeted to the benefit of all law-abiding people as opposed to laws targeted based on stereotypical categorizations of people.

The NEED to categorize people by color, class, race and ethnicity is so ingrained in the liberal mindset, that they can't even see the hypocrisy of their own actions.

[edited for typos]

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Rockhound on 2002-01-15 16:24 ]</font>

[Guerilla poster]

I agree with Rockhound - that is a first.

[The Drunken Actuary]

On 2002-01-15 16:23, Rockhound wrote:
I agree that the Boston city council should stop using the term "minority". Why can't they just refer to "citizens", or "people in our city"? Shouldn't they be making laws targeted to the benefit of all law-abiding people as opposed to laws targeted based on stereotypical categorizations of people.

Makes sense to me.



The NEED to categorize people by color, class, race and ethnicity is so ingrained in the liberal mindset, that they can't even see the hypocrisy of their own actions.


How is it hypocritical?

[Double High C]

On 2002-01-14 21:35, Traci - Admin wrote:
I suppose we could take a poll.


What do they like to be called these days?

[Double High C]

The truth of the matter:

1. It is in fact ridiculous to get bent out of shape over the correct term that is used in a particular instance to refer to e.g. an inately dark person of African descent.

(Dogmatic libs often get bent out of shape on this.)

Corollary 1: Trying to impose rigid rules is silly and counterproductive.


2. There are subtleties in language that convey different messages appropriate for different purposes. For example, if a coworker asked you which of the guys in your office was "Joey", it would be more appropriate to say that he is the tall black guy as opposed to the tall AA guy; ethnicity is not directly relevant. OTOH, if you are talking about the type of foods that Joey's mother cooked for him as a youngun, AA seems more fitting. (Having said that, certainly, if Joey - or whitey - chooses to talk about how soul food from the typical black home tastes, no one should be offended.)

(Dogmatic rightists often get bent out of shape on this. They think that people who discuss the merits and the implications of such language usage or evolution are wacko PC police who are out to get them.)

Corollry 2: Having a discussion about the usage of the terms (by the member of those in the group, those not in the group, or both) can be productive. For example, if dark skinned Americans of African descent want themselves and others to appreciate their rich cultural heritage, then they might feel that referring to themselves as AA in a large number of circumstances serves their purpose. (Having said that, they cannot and should not and I believe most do not really want to try to force others to call them AA and not black.)

[Dr T Non-Fan]

I'm just going to use a color wheel from the paint store from now on, and not worry about where people or their families came from.

[Double High C]

On 2002-01-17 19:59, Dr T Non-Fan wrote:
I'm just going to use a color wheel from the paint store from now on, and not worry about where people or their families came from.


And that is basically the point!!! (I'm serious.)

When you see someone on the street or are referring to someone superficially, tall is to having much height as black (hwite) is to having much (little) dark melanin.

PS Do y'all hout there say hwite or white? (It seems hard to say hwite, but I remember my 2nd grade teacher saying that it is the correct pronunciation.)

[Traci]

"""The NEED to categorize people by color, class, race and ethnicity is so ingrained in the liberal mindset, that they can't even see the hypocrisy of their own actions. """

That's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. But not surprising to find it here.

I agree with BPC above.

[The Drunken Actuary]

I just wish someone could explain to me how it's hypocritical.

[Paddyboy1]

He says its hypocritical because MLK the long-range goal of the civil rights movement at one time was for MLK's dream of a color-blind society. If one had a need to be race-conscious and to categorize people by race, that person himself wouldn't be color-blind.

[Traci]

"""MLK's dream of a color-blind society. """

The dream (as I understand it) was of a society where people were not judged to be inferior on the basis of skin color - where people are TREATED the same.

This does not equate to pretending that we all have the same cultural heritage. We don't.

[Double High C]

It need not be hypocritical. (Having said that, I do think that fundamentalist leftists, for lack of a better term, cross over the line to hypocrisy; note that I have not seen / heard / read any self-proclaimed liberal or moderate in these forums cross that line.)

On one level, I don't disagree with Traci. We are all affected by culture, and there is no reason to ignore that fact.

However, in a color-blind society, we would probably not form a strong opinion about Joey just because he is black; we would not whisper our opinion on e.g. inner city schools or any other issue merely because a black / white / red person is sitting at the next table. (Note that from my observation, it seems that more Republicans / conservatives are guilty of this; many of them make the argument for a color-blind society. A strong case can be made that they are the biggest hypocrites on this issue.) My main point here is that before we know someone, we should be (perhaps not absolutely, but largely) color-blind, culture-blind, etc.

One other point that many self-proclaimed MLK admirers who are pro Affirmative Action (on which reasonable people may disagree) is that in order to get to the goal of a color-blind society, we need to take temporary steps that are highly focused on race; for example, they would say that we need to track black vs. white incomes, etc, for evidence of how close or how far away we are from the goal.

It would be unfair for the people who subscribe to this approach to call people racist just because they disagree with this approach. Similarly, it would be unfair and wrong for the nonsubscribers to call the subscribers hypocrites.

[42]

You can call me black, or you can call me African-American, or you can call me a minority; just don't call me Shirley! :grin: Look, I'm all for people trying to be more sensitive to others, and they can certainly suggest that others follow their lead, but I find it offensive when somebody dictates that I must use certain terms when referring to certain groups. Last month, the head honcho of King County, Washington, announced that government employees were not allowed to say "Merry Christmas" or "Happy Hanukkah", but were instead limited to the phrase "Happy Holidays". Fortunately, he was considered a buffoon for this, even by the "liberal-biased media". Thank God the majority of Democrats in this country generally have the sense to know when somebody has taken their cause too far.

[The Drunken Actuary]

Personally, I stick with Happy Holidays myslef if I do not know the religious persuasion of the person I am speaking to. I see nothing wrong with asking employees to do the same when they are representing the company (or county). Perhaps people had been offended and the 'head honcho' was trying to prevent it from continuing to happen.

[Griffin 1]

If "Merry Christmas" offends them, then let them be offended. They are looking for something to find offense with, so you might as well make it easier for everyone.

[The Drunken Actuary]

On 2002-01-19 22:51, Griffin wrote:
If "Merry Christmas" offends them, then let them be offended. They are looking for something to find offense with, so you might as well make it easier for everyone.

I wasn't really worried about offending, I just hate to be presumptious. If a 'Merry Christmas' came out and someone were offended, it wouldn't bother me. On the other hand, if I were running a business and had some negative feedback from customers, I would try to find alternatives and ask employees to do the same.

[42]

There had been no negative feedback - he just felt is was politically correct. I also use "Happy Holidays" most of the time, but by my own choice, not because the speech police have dictated it to me.

[The Drunken Actuary]

Then perhaps he should be commended for his proactiveness. :smile: