Re: It did happen on a Friday...

Subject: Re: It did happen on a Friday...
From: "bryan johnson" <bryan -dot- johnson -at- motoman -dot- com>
To: <al -dot- geist -at- geistassociates -dot- com>,<techwr-l -at- lists -dot- raycomm -dot- com>
Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2004 11:38:04 -0500

Please clarify. I honestly do not see the "joke". How are the terms
"chief" and "Indian" derogatory? I'm not trying to be sarcastic. I
have been raised in a "German-American" culture and this may be the
reason for my blindness. But I honestly am confused. Was the term
"chief" derogatory? Similar to "squaw"?

On an aside, the terms 'master" and 'slave" have absolutely nothing
to do with the skin color. These words describe a relationship.
Egyptians to Jews, non-Spartans to Spartan, African tribe to African
tribe, and on and on. I can understand how these terms can bring up
uncomfortable memories of recent history when humans were placed in
these roles. However, it does not eliminate the reality of that
relationship and can sometimes be the only way to describe that
relationship. I doubt there is a culture alive that has not at some
point in history played the part of master or slave. It is an ugly
and horrible relationship on the human scale, but a necessary and
beneficial relationship on the inanimate.

I think the language loses a great deal when we personify words.

Just my two bits. Please do not take offense. Oft times the written
word can be read with an offensive tone. I hope this is not one.

I would like to know more about the language I use. I only recently
discovered that "squaw" was derogatory. Not that it was a term I
frequently used, but good to know. So anyway, please enlighten me.




Previous by Author: Re: Common Errors in English - pattern recognition
Next by Author: Re: resizing gifs
Previous by Thread: Re: It did happen on a Friday...
Next by Thread: Re: It did happen on a Friday...

What this post helpful? Share it with friends and colleagues:

Sponsored Ads