From: lkk@panix.com (Larry Kolodney)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.african.american
Subject: Re: peculiar language
Date: 10 Oct 92 06:00:10 GMT
Organization: PANIX Public Access Unix, NYC

In <1992Oct7.223006.3002@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> aburt@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu (Andrew Burt) writes:

>In <1992Oct7.014008.10903@panix.com> lkk@panix.com (Larry Kolodney) writes:

[concerning headline "black named to high court"]

>>The problem with your analysis is that it is ahistorical.  While you
>>might like to live in a society in which a person's skin color is no
>>more relevant than their shoe size, at the moment, you don't.  You
>>live in a society in which a person's skin color is highly
>>determinative (although less so than in the past) of their social and
>>economic class, and of how they are perceived by others.

>And this is exactly the problem that I am propose to combat.  I *do* want
>to live in such a society, and I believe one way to advance that cause is
>to start acting like we do.

If wishes were horses, beggars would ride.  You don't change society
by pretending that bad attitudes don't exist.


>I am not saying "put history behind us and forget it".  I am saying,
>put history behind us, and teach it, but make it clear that it's HISTORY.
>Let's not keep promoting it.  This kind of language promotes the problem.

How does it promote the problem?  There is an unspoken assumption in
your position that pointing out that Professor Scott is black is a bad
thing.  But that just begs the question of why society views Professor
Scott's skin color as an issue.  If we lived in the egalitarian
society you promote, it wouldn't matter if Professor Scott's skin
color was mentioned or not.  

>>Consequently, Professor Scott's skin color IS newsworthy.  Just as it
>>was newsworthy when JFK became the first Catholic president, or when
>>Brandeis the first Jewish Supreme Court justice.

>I disagree.  Unless skin color affects his qualifications to serve, it
>isn't an issue.

"Qualifications to serve" is not the only newsworthy aspect of the
story in question.  If it was, the article would simply say:
"Professor Scott appointed to high court based on the following
qualifications:..."  But it doesn't, it gives you background about
Professor Scott, including who appointed him, how old he is, how many
children he has, hobbies perhaps.

Besides, you're kidding yourself if you think there's some objective
category of personal attributes called "qualifications to serve."
Professor Scott's skin color was almost certainly considered by
whoever appointed him.


>  It shouldn't be mentioned.  If, because Kennedy was
>catholic it meant he held certain views, then I would say he should be
>critiqued based on his views (all of them), not the fact that he was
>catholic.

Kennedy's being Catholic was significant because of the long history
of anti-catholic sentiment in this country.  The fact that he was
elected president was evidence that anti-catholicism had subsided
somewhat.  That made it newsworthy, totally apart from any reflection
it had on Kennedy as a person.


>>A more subtle question is: was it bad judgment to put Professor
>>Scott's race in the headline, or should it have been kept in the text
>>of the article?

>Maybe...
>I would agree that, as a historical aside, it might be ok to note
>that he's the first judge with dark colored skin -- but only if it makes
>as much sense to mention that he's the first judge with (say) a size 12 shoe,
>or some other unimportant but interesting fact.  (One might then argue
>that if it's irrelevant it should be omitted...)  It keeps propagating
>the notion that it matters.  It doesn't.

Yes, it does matter.  It matters as a sybolic issue, and to the extent
that Professor Scott is culturally black, it also matters because that
cultural upbrining will inform his jurisprudence.


>>...On the

>To me it seems quite simple:  If, in an ideal world, it would be relevant,
>then mention it; if not, don't.  After a while of it not being constantly
>mentioned as a issue, the problem itself might not be there any more.


This is a curious sociological theory, that all bad attitudes come
from newspaper headlines.

-- 
larry kolodney:(lkk@panix.com) 
_(*#&)#*&%)@(*^%_!*&%^!)*&#+!*&$+!?&%+!*&^_)*&#%)*&^%#+&
The past is not dead, it's not even past.   - Wm. Faulkner
Newsgroups: soc.culture.african.american