From: messiah@nevada.edu (mw)
Subject: Re: Female breast (bosom) experience wanted!
Organization: University of Nevada System Computing Services
Date: Sat, 17 Oct 1992 01:25:24 GMT

In article <Bw71wt.DKE@nic.umass.edu> s1006420@titan.ucc.umass.edu (If you want peace work for justice) writes:
>In article <101492142504dude@losers.hacktic.nl> dude@losers.hacktic.nl writes:
>>In article  <Bvrw41.8Es@nic.umass.edu>, 
>>Vera B. writes:
>>
>> S> I once had a professor who referred to African Americans as niggers
>> S> and then he would add, "but I'm not really racist, ha-ha" - and

IMHO (I finally figured out what that means :-) ) what matters is someone's
*INTENT* only. Lables are arbitrary, they are only offensive if they are
meant that way. In interpersonal communication it makes no difference what
words people use, because one can tell from such things as body language
and demeanor if they mean well or not. *HOWEVER* with e-mail there is no 
such luxury, there are only generic words cast off into a state of
ether-anonymity void of character or personal amicability.

*THUS* it can not actually be helped that people take the bare words of
an e-mail message in too narrow a context and misconstrue them to be
antagonistic when in fact that may not have been the caseat all. While
taking a defensive stance against the use of certain terms is certainly 
understandable, I do think that open minded people should allow for a 
generous margin of alternative interpretation in the *INTENT* of a given 
e-mail post. The use of colloquialisms (slang-lingo) can easily denote 
a desire to be on more familiar terms with whomever the conversation is
with and/or about.

>In fact, racism can only function as long as you don't think about
>it, don't criticize it and co-opt with it. The same for sexism...

>> S> I've seen these excuses before...racists and sexists will always need
>> S> to justify their lack of respect as something else other than what it is.
>> S> 
>> S> Vera B.

That ties in with what I said above. Some people make use of slang to be
more familiar with others. It could be argued that familiarity undermines
respect, *BUT* respect often manifests itself in the form of creating a
social distance between people. When "respect" evolves in such a way as
to encourage social *DISTINCTION*, then it seems to me that one might be
a lot better off being familiar instead.
 
>> Once, we were in walking in the dark, and I could only hear one of my
>> (black) friends, I couln't see him. So I asked him to smile so I could
>> at least see his teeth in the dark (no a great joke, but it's an example).

Those things are no big deal. As someone of mixed background (primarily
Dutch - but there's plenty of Anglo-Italian-American in me too) who shares
an apartment with a two other international students (Japanese & Bengali)
I can confidently attest to the fact that one doesn't have to dance around
on one's toes to observe all the intercultural graces. Making jokes about
cultural diversities is par for the course around here, but the intent is
never to be insulting.

>> S> 'There are none so blind as those who do not wish to see'

And that includes absolutely everyone on any side of any issue. There is
no such thing as perfect, mutually-harmonious consensus, but ya can get
pretty damn close if ya try.

>> 'Don't take yourself too seriously'                 Dan Millman

>No matter how thin you slice it, it's still baloney.      Smith
>
>Vera B.

Thesis -> antithesis -> synthesis... all things conceptual in nature are
in a perpetual state of evolutionary refinement. One must avoid being 
prejudiced against an entire issue merely because emotions put one on the
deffensive against part of it.

                                                    ...Marco, LV, NV, USA

Newsgroups: sci.anthropology