| Author |
Message |
Maria Conlon
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 24, 2004 12:08 am
Post subject: "Young Joe[y]" a leader in "racism" usage |
|
|
We've kidded Joe (DE781) about stretching the term "racist." But there's
evidence that he's been in the vanguard...
Excerpted from a speech given by New York Times reporter Chris Hedges:
"There was absolutely no interest in my newspaper in presenting the
views of the French" as the U.S. moved toward war in Iraq, Hedges said.
Instead, there was lots of guffawing over anti-French jokes, which he
termed "racist."
Pulled from article at:
http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=7417
Maria Conlon
Honest criticism is hard to take, particularly from a relative, a
friend, an acquaintance, or a stranger. [Franklin P. Jones]
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Mark Barratt
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 24, 2004 6:01 pm
Post subject: Re: "Young Joe[y]" a leader in "racism" usage |
|
|
Maria Conlon wrote:
| Quote: | lots of guffawing over anti-French jokes, which he termed
"racist."
|
Does it really matter? Yes, technically the French are not a
"race" so an irrational prejudice against them is not "racism".
In the same way, somebody who says "I can't stand Americans -
they're all loud-mouthed imbeciles" or "I don't trust left-handed
people" or "What would you know? You're a foreigner" is not
guilty of racism - but they're guilty of bigotry and unreasoning
prejudice, which is precisely what's wrong with racism.
In racism, race (or, more likely, skin colour) just happens to be
the criterion on which the irrational prejudice is predicated -
but it's the irrational prejudice which is wrong, no matter what
the excuse.
For lack of a better term (suggestions?), "racist" strikes me as
a not unfair way of characterising such bigotry.
--
Mark Barratt
Budapest |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CyberCypher
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 24, 2004 6:02 pm
Post subject: Re: "Young Joe[y]" a leader in "racism" usage |
|
|
Mark Barratt wrote on 24 Nov 2004:
| Quote: | Maria Conlon wrote:
lots of guffawing over anti-French jokes, which he termed
"racist."
Does it really matter? Yes, technically the French are not a
"race" so an irrational prejudice against them is not "racism".
In the same way, somebody who says "I can't stand Americans -
they're all loud-mouthed imbeciles" or "I don't trust left-handed
people" or "What would you know? You're a foreigner" is not
guilty of racism - but they're guilty of bigotry and unreasoning
prejudice, which is precisely what's wrong with racism.
In racism, race (or, more likely, skin colour) just happens to be
the criterion on which the irrational prejudice is predicated -
but it's the irrational prejudice which is wrong, no matter what
the excuse.
For lack of a better term (suggestions?), "racist" strikes me as
a not unfair way of characterising such bigotry.
"Bigoted" and "prejudiced" are two much better terms than "racist". |
There's no need to characterize every type of prejudice. That's what
brought us the stupidity of "lookist" and "lookism", two words that
are offensive simply because they exist. Not only do they describe a
condition that the Romantic poets praised for 100 years ("Beauty is
truth, truth beauty,—that is all / Ye know on earth, and all ye need
to know."), but they provide a fair characterization of everyone on
the Earth who can see and feel well enough to perceive beauty.
Developmental psychologists have sufficient data to tell us that
infants prefer faces that are what can only be called symmetrical
and, by Western standards at least, "beautiful" --- although the
research did indicate that infants of all cultures and races and
sexes preferred the same series of symmetrical faces to the same
series of non-symmetrical and ugly faces.
Morality and moralists are misguided at best when they tell us that
"ugly" is a bad word and should be replaced with "different". It
makes no sense to attempt to be angelic when confronted by ugliness
when ugliness revolts us all to some degree or other. Different
people, of course, have different ideas of what ugly and beautiful
are, and they also have different thresholds of aesthetic pain.
That doesn't mean that our innate preference for beauty over ugliness
gives anyone the right to point out to the ugly that they are ugly.
That's unnecessary and cruel, so better to hold one's tongue even if
one cannot hold one's lunch. It also doesn't mean that people ought
to choose employees or friends or lifemates solely on physical
appearance. That's sheer stupidity.
--
Franke: EFL teacher & medical editor
For email, replace numbers with English alphabet.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Charles Riggs
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 24, 2004 6:12 pm
Post subject: Re: "Young Joe[y]" a leader in "racism" usage |
|
|
On 24 Nov 2004 12:46:07 GMT, CyberCypher
<cybercypher@19-16-25-13-01-03.com> wrote:
| Quote: | That doesn't mean that our innate preference for beauty over ugliness
gives anyone the right to point out to the ugly that they are ugly.
That's unnecessary and cruel, so better to hold one's tongue even if
one cannot hold one's lunch. It also doesn't mean that people ought
to choose employees or friends or lifemates solely on physical
appearance. That's sheer stupidity.
|
I agree our preference for beauty over ugliness is innate, as you say.
If prejudice is related to that trait as I think it, along with
bigotry and racism, is in some cases, this would be a place to observe
that some people's inclination to be prejudiced against certain groups
also appears to be innate, although a recent study I read about
apparently claims these traits can be unlearned.
My question is why are some people prejudiced at all, especially when
so strongly so? Do we fear someone because we think he is a threat,
someone to avoid because he doesn't look or act as we do, so we
conclude we should hate him and his group? This might have made some
sense in the jungle or when we lived with a number of unknowns and
superstitious beliefs, although I rather doubt it, but how does it
serve us in the modern world? I'd think prejudice never works for a
person, only against him.
From a practical standpoint, if not moral and logical ones, it is hard
for me to see why someone would be prejudiced in a way that would
cause him and others upset. I can see how someone might prefer the
Irish over, say, the Koreans, and thus hang around with more Irish
people than Koreans as a result, but I can't see how hating the
Koreans as a group works to anyone's advantage, assuming we're not at
war with their nation, for hate, some say, can be an advantage in
battle, but I stray from my point.
Why are some people strongly prejudiced, to get back to it? (And what
can be done about them?)
--
Charles Riggs
They are no accented letters in my email address |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John O'Flaherty
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 24, 2004 6:12 pm
Post subject: Re: "Young Joe[y]" a leader in "racism" usage |
|
|
CyberCypher wrote:
| Quote: |
Morality and moralists are misguided at best when they tell us that
"ugly" is a bad word and should be replaced with "different". It
makes no sense to attempt to be angelic when confronted by ugliness
when ugliness revolts us all to some degree or other. Different
people, of course, have different ideas of what ugly and beautiful
are, and they also have different thresholds of aesthetic pain.
|
I prefer to think of myself as "differently-beautied".
--
john |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Harvey Van Sickle
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 24, 2004 6:12 pm
Post subject: Re: "Young Joe[y]" a leader in "racism" usage |
|
|
On 24 Nov 2004, John O'Flaherty wrote
| Quote: | CyberCypher wrote:
Morality and moralists are misguided at best when they tell us that
"ugly" is a bad word and should be replaced with "different". It
makes no sense to attempt to be angelic when confronted by ugliness
when ugliness revolts us all to some degree or other. Different
people, of course, have different ideas of what ugly and beautiful
are, and they also have different thresholds of aesthetic pain.
I prefer to think of myself as "differently-beautied".
|
And why are plugs considered famously ugly?
--
Cheers, Harvey
Ottawa/Toronto/Edmonton for 30 years;
Southern England for the past 22 years.
(for e-mail, change harvey.news to harvey.van) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CyberCypher
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 24, 2004 6:12 pm
Post subject: Re: "Young Joe[y]" a leader in "racism" usage |
|
|
Charles Riggs wrote on 24 Nov 2004:
| Quote: | On 24 Nov 2004 12:46:07 GMT, CyberCypher
cybercypher@19-16-25-13-01-03.com> wrote:
That doesn't mean that our innate preference for beauty over
ugliness gives anyone the right to point out to the ugly that they
are ugly. That's unnecessary and cruel, so better to hold one's
tongue even if one cannot hold one's lunch. It also doesn't mean
that people ought to choose employees or friends or lifemates
solely on physical appearance. That's sheer stupidity.
I agree our preference for beauty over ugliness is innate, as you
say. If prejudice is related to that trait as I think it, along
with bigotry and racism, is in some cases, this would be a place
to observe that some people's inclination to be prejudiced against
certain groups also appears to be innate, although a recent study
I read about apparently claims these traits can be unlearned.
My question is why are some people prejudiced at all, especially
when so strongly so? Do we fear someone because we think he is a
threat, someone to avoid because he doesn't look or act as we do,
so we conclude we should hate him and his group? This might have
made some sense in the jungle or when we lived with a number of
unknowns and superstitious beliefs, although I rather doubt it,
but how does it serve us in the modern world? I'd think prejudice
never works for a person, only against him.
|
What is innate in humans is not a product of the modern world but the
prehistoric world, according to the sociobiologists. Our intincts
supported survival; hence, they were reinforced. Now they lead to
things like Iraq and the Middle East.
| Quote: | From a practical standpoint, if not moral and logical ones, it is
hard for me to see why someone would be prejudiced in a way that
would cause him and others upset. I can see how someone might
prefer the Irish over, say, the Koreans, and thus hang around with
more Irish people than Koreans as a result, but I can't see how
hating the Koreans as a group works to anyone's advantage,
assuming we're not at war with their nation, for hate, some say,
can be an advantage in battle, but I stray from my point.
Why are some people strongly prejudiced, to get back to it? (And
what can be done about them?)
|
I suggest that reading E. E. Evans-Pritchard's essay on segmental
opposition will go a long way toward explaining the us-them
mentality. I also suggest that humans are almost as territorial as
some animals and even more vicious when their territory is trespassed
upon. I doubt that anything innate can be unlearned, but I am
convinced that one can learn to control one's innate feelings and
fears.
--
Franke: EFL teacher & medical editor
For email, replace numbers with English alphabet. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
the Omrud
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 24, 2004 6:13 pm
Post subject: Re: "Young Joe[y]" a leader in "racism" usage |
|
|
Harvey Van Sickle typed thus:
| Quote: | On 24 Nov 2004, John O'Flaherty wrote
CyberCypher wrote:
Morality and moralists are misguided at best when they tell us that
"ugly" is a bad word and should be replaced with "different". It
makes no sense to attempt to be angelic when confronted by ugliness
when ugliness revolts us all to some degree or other. Different
people, of course, have different ideas of what ugly and beautiful
are, and they also have different thresholds of aesthetic pain.
I prefer to think of myself as "differently-beautied".
And why are plugs considered famously ugly?
|
http://www.paulmorris.co.uk/beano/strips/bashstreetkids.htm
and also
http://www.paulmorris.co.uk/beano/plug.htm
--
David
=====
replace the first component of address
with the definite article. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jess Askin
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 24, 2004 6:13 pm
Post subject: Re: "Young Joe[y]" a leader in "racism" usage |
|
|
"Harvey Van Sickle" <harvey.news@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:Xns95ABA062485FEwhhvans@62.253.162.205...
| Quote: | On 24 Nov 2004, John O'Flaherty wrote
CyberCypher wrote:
Morality and moralists are misguided at best when they tell us that
"ugly" is a bad word and should be replaced with "different". It
makes no sense to attempt to be angelic when confronted by ugliness
when ugliness revolts us all to some degree or other. Different
people, of course, have different ideas of what ugly and beautiful
are, and they also have different thresholds of aesthetic pain.
I prefer to think of myself as "differently-beautied".
And why are plugs considered famously ugly?
|
I thought it was pug ugly. But anyway we just had a thread about this. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Harvey Van Sickle
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 24, 2004 6:13 pm
Post subject: Re: "Young Joe[y]" a leader in "racism" usage |
|
|
On 24 Nov 2004, Jess Askin wrote
| Quote: |
"Harvey Van Sickle" <harvey.news@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:Xns95ABA062485FEwhhvans@62.253.162.205...
On 24 Nov 2004, John O'Flaherty wrote
CyberCypher wrote:
Morality and moralists are misguided at best when they tell us
that "ugly" is a bad word and should be replaced with
"different". It makes no sense to attempt to be angelic when
confronted by ugliness when ugliness revolts us all to some
degree or other. Different people, of course, have different
ideas of what ugly and beautiful are, and they also have
different thresholds of aesthetic pain.
I prefer to think of myself as "differently-beautied".
And why are plugs considered famously ugly?
I thought it was pug ugly. But anyway we just had a thread about
this.
|
Ah: I missed that. (Did it establish any provenance for "pug-ugly"?
Collins doesn't recognise it, but does have the "plug" version.)
--
Cheers, Harvey
Ottawa/Toronto/Edmonton for 30 years;
Southern England for the past 22 years.
(for e-mail, change harvey.news to harvey.van) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mark Barratt
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 25, 2004 12:07 am
Post subject: Re: "Young Joe[y]" a leader in "racism" usage |
|
|
CyberCypher wrote:
| Quote: |
"Bigoted" and "prejudiced" are two much better terms than
"racist". There's no need to characterize every type of
prejudice. That's what brought us the stupidity of "lookist"
and "lookism", two words that are offensive simply because they
exist. Not only do they describe a condition that the Romantic
poets praised for 100 years ("Beauty is truth, truth
beauty,—that is all / Ye know on earth, and all ye need to
know."), but they provide a fair characterization of everyone
on the Earth who can see and feel well enough to perceive
beauty.
|
I confess that I've never been able to understand this. That
there are some pretty ugly truths out there seems obvious, and
anyone with a shred of experience in the world will be aware that
beauty can at times be a cruel deception. I just don't have the
soul of a poet, I guess.
| Quote: | Developmental psychologists have sufficient data to tell us
that infants prefer faces that are what can only be called
symmetrical and, by Western standards at least, "beautiful" ---
although the research did indicate that infants of all cultures
and races and sexes preferred the same series of symmetrical
faces to the same series of non-symmetrical and ugly faces.
|
Hmm. That there is some degree of commonality in who is perceived
as beautiful/ugly shouldn't surprise us, and that it has a
genetic basis is something that Darwinists might expect. But it
should be noted that this falls far short of saying that *all*,
or even a major part of our definition of beauty is
pre-programmed. Consider what might have happened if the faces to
which the infants in the above study were exposed had included
those of their own parents. Would this not be expected to skew
the results?
| Quote: | Morality and moralists are misguided at best when they tell us
that "ugly" is a bad word and should be replaced with
"different". It makes no sense to attempt to be angelic when
confronted by ugliness when ugliness revolts us all to some
degree or other. Different people, of course, have different
ideas of what ugly and beautiful are, and they also have
different thresholds of aesthetic pain.
|
Moreover, continuing the argument I made above, it isn't
necessarily the case that beauty and its opposite are entirely,
or even mainly, visual or structural phenomena. The joke about
the ugly woman becoming beautiful after ten beers is well enough
known that I won't weary anyone's eyes with it, but more serious
examples are easy to come by. My own experience includes knowing
people who I've thought spectacularly ugly on first acquaintance,
but who I've come to see almost literally "in a different light",
as it were, as I've got to know them. A talented actress [female
readers are requested to bear with my masculine outlook, here]
who would normally be thought beautiful can often make herself
considerably less attractive in the portrayal of an unsympathetic
character by means of her performance. Make-up helps, of course,
but there's the matter of facial expression and body language.
| Quote: | That doesn't mean that our innate preference for beauty over
ugliness gives anyone the right to point out to the ugly that
they are ugly. That's unnecessary and cruel, so better to hold
one's tongue even if one cannot hold one's lunch.
|
I'm not sure how well this sits with your suggestion, above, that
"ugly" isn't a bad word. You seem to be saying that it's only a
bad word if overheard by the person it's applied to.
| Quote: | It also
doesn't mean that people ought to choose employees or friends
or lifemates solely on physical appearance. That's sheer
stupidity.
|
Sadly, though, it seems to be human nature to do so.
--
Mark Barratt
Budapest |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ben Zimmer
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 25, 2004 12:09 am
Post subject: Re: "Young Joe[y]" a leader in "racism" usage |
|
|
Harvey Van Sickle wrote:
| Quote: |
On 24 Nov 2004, Jess Askin wrote
"Harvey Van Sickle" <harvey.news@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:Xns95ABA062485FEwhhvans@62.253.162.205...
And why are plugs considered famously ugly?
I thought it was pug ugly. But anyway we just had a thread about
this.
Ah: I missed that. (Did it establish any provenance for "pug-ugly"?
Collins doesn't recognise it, but does have the "plug" version.)
|
See: <http://groups.google.com/groups?th=2a134919abe21b64>.
The noun "pug-ugly" started appearing as a variant of "plug-ugly" c.
1890, likely influenced by "pug" the wrinkle-faced dog and perhaps also
"pug" the jocular contraction of "pugilist" (an early cite refers to the
boxer Jim Corbett). Adjectival "pug-ugly" is a later development. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jess Askin
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 25, 2004 12:09 am
Post subject: Re: "Young Joe[y]" a leader in "racism" usage |
|
|
"Harvey Van Sickle" <harvey.news@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:Xns95ABACD347DCFwhhvans@62.253.162.201...
| Quote: | On 24 Nov 2004, Jess Askin wrote
"Harvey Van Sickle" <harvey.news@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:Xns95ABA062485FEwhhvans@62.253.162.205...
On 24 Nov 2004, John O'Flaherty wrote
CyberCypher wrote:
Morality and moralists are misguided at best when they tell us
that "ugly" is a bad word and should be replaced with
"different". It makes no sense to attempt to be angelic when
confronted by ugliness when ugliness revolts us all to some
degree or other. Different people, of course, have different
ideas of what ugly and beautiful are, and they also have
different thresholds of aesthetic pain.
I prefer to think of myself as "differently-beautied".
And why are plugs considered famously ugly?
I thought it was pug ugly. But anyway we just had a thread about
this.
Ah: I missed that. (Did it establish any provenance for "pug-ugly"?
Collins doesn't recognise it, but does have the "plug" version.)
|
There was a lot of discussion of that very question. I'll refer you to the
thread:
http://tinyurl.com/3qfaw |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jess Askin
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 25, 2004 12:10 am
Post subject: Re: "Young Joe[y]" a leader in "racism" usage |
|
|
"Mark Barratt" <mark.barratt@enternet.hu> wrote in message
news:xn0dq5hkagcw65002@news.individual.net...
| Quote: | CyberCypher wrote:
"Bigoted" and "prejudiced" are two much better terms than
"racist". There's no need to characterize every type of
prejudice. That's what brought us the stupidity of "lookist"
and "lookism", two words that are offensive simply because they
exist. Not only do they describe a condition that the Romantic
poets praised for 100 years ("Beauty is truth, truth
beauty,-that is all / Ye know on earth, and all ye need to
know."), but they provide a fair characterization of everyone
on the Earth who can see and feel well enough to perceive
beauty.
I confess that I've never been able to understand this. That
there are some pretty ugly truths out there seems obvious, and
anyone with a shred of experience in the world will be aware that
beauty can at times be a cruel deception. I just don't have the
soul of a poet, I guess.
Developmental psychologists have sufficient data to tell us
that infants prefer faces that are what can only be called
symmetrical and, by Western standards at least, "beautiful" ---
although the research did indicate that infants of all cultures
and races and sexes preferred the same series of symmetrical
faces to the same series of non-symmetrical and ugly faces.
Hmm. That there is some degree of commonality in who is perceived
as beautiful/ugly shouldn't surprise us, and that it has a
genetic basis is something that Darwinists might expect. But it
should be noted that this falls far short of saying that *all*,
or even a major part of our definition of beauty is
pre-programmed. Consider what might have happened if the faces to
which the infants in the above study were exposed had included
those of their own parents.
|
Or of a bunny rabbit or a kitty. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Maria Conlon
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 25, 2004 12:10 am
Post subject: Re: "Young Joe[y]" a leader in "racism" usage |
|
|
Mark Barratt wrote:
| Quote: | Maria Conlon wrote:
lots of guffawing over anti-French jokes, which he termed
"racist."
Does it really matter? Yes, technically the French are not a
"race" so an irrational prejudice against them is not "racism".
In the same way, somebody who says "I can't stand Americans -
they're all loud-mouthed imbeciles" or "I don't trust left-handed
people" or "What would you know? You're a foreigner" is not
guilty of racism - but they're guilty of bigotry and unreasoning
prejudice, which is precisely what's wrong with racism.
|
I see "racism" as a kind of bigotry, but not as a synonym for it. Using
it as a synonym would tend to weaken "racism" as a specific term, and
could also tend to narrow the current meaning of "bigotry." It would be
preferable (IMO) to use "bigotry" to mean "racism" than to use "racism"
to mean "bigotry."
| Quote: | In racism, race (or, more likely, skin colour) just happens to be
the criterion on which the irrational prejudice is predicated -
but it's the irrational prejudice which is wrong, no matter what
the excuse.
For lack of a better term (suggestions?), "racist" strikes me as
a not unfair way of characterising such bigotry.
|
But why use "racist" to mean "bigotry" when the word "bigotry" is
already available?
Maria Conlon |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
FAQ
Memberlist
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in