From: aburt@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu (Andrew Burt)
Subject: Re: peculiar language
Organization: University of Denver, Dept. of Math & Comp. Sci.
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 92 22:30:06 GMT

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

>In <1992Oct6.030654.2241@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> aburt@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu (Andrew Burt) writes:

>>To summarize, my basic point below is:  Do we and the media need to
>>pay significantly more attention to our language in order to eliminate
>>irrelevant and harmful categorization of people by physical characteristics?

>>..."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.

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.

>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.  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.  That is, being "catholic", in this context, means you MAY
have certain views -- but it doesn't imply each and every one.  I'm know
there exist catholics who disagree with church doctrine.  Therefore,
the label "catholic", when applied to one specific individual, is next
to useless.  (It may suggest a higher probability to have those views,
but not a certainty; therefore, since certainty is needed in, e.g.,
choosing a president, I don't care if he's catholic or an atheist.)
And that's with something that's a matter of some personal choice; skin
color is not much a matter of choice.

>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.

>...On the
>other hand, if Colorado's racial climate is so bad as to make such an
>appointment otherwise shockingly surprising, then perhaps the headline
>was appropriate, since it would probably be the most interesting thing
>in the article.

I don't think it's bad, indeed, may be above average.  I'm sure that
judgement based on skin color happens, just because all humans haven't risen
above this childish insecurity.  But I don't believe that in this case
it should have been mentioned.

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.  I
would like to believe that in N years (for small N) people will look back
and say, "look at this headline, 'Black named to high court' -- that would
sure sound silly today" (because nobody would care what color someone is).
-- 

Andrew Burt 		   					  aburt@du.edu

      "And that, my liege, is how we know the Earth to be banana-shaped"
Newsgroups: soc.culture.african.american