|
|
|
Comment |
Sorted by
Date Written |
Yes! (Reply to this comment)
by bethesdalily
All right, first allow me to say that, if this is still on your alerts and if you're getting multiple comments from me in one day, I apologize--but only as a curtesy. Actually, you have plunged me so deep into a writative mood--the literary form of talkative, don't you know--that I shan't emerge from it until I've read all of your advice pieces.
On with more relevant ramblings. I aree wholeheartedly concerning "tolerance". Understanding is so much more important. Recently, I visited several organizations in an attempt to discover their purpose, mission, etc. Long story... Anyway, the first business was... um... [hems and haws in a fruitless search for the least frustrated word] ... unique. When I spoke to some of the HR representatives, all they wanted to discuss was the fact that I am blind. I left feeling rather discouraged, to say the least. The next business was better--not tolerant, not even "understanding", but nearly oblivious. This time, the HR representatives were eager to discuss relevant topics, and all else was secondary. Beautiful!
You said something to the effect that various groups use terminology that would be offensive if used by those outside that group. Yes and no... Despite encouragement to do otherwise, I never joke about my own visual impairment or anyone else's. In my experience, that sort of "humor" is something that men resort to and that women stow away in an attic somewhere.
As you can see, I found this piece incredibly thought-provoking.
Blessings,
Nicole
|
May 17 '11
10:28 am PDT
|
|
IMHO-- (Reply to this comment)
by gaviidae
---you have written the most intelligent and helpful discussion of the subject I've seen here---or maybe anywhere. I can't say I agree with every last word you said, but I feel it's the clearest POV I've seen offered here, and there's little I wouldn't agree with very strongly.
Liked your clarifications about Jewishness---and can't imagine how anyone would see the word Jew as pejorative---unless it were used as a verb, as you said.
Thanks---VERY helpful!
Gavia
|
May 29 '05
3:54 pm PDT
|
|
:o) (Reply to this comment)
by Twix109
This all goes back to why we live in the United States.
Freedom of choice; and...freedom to get offended.
Intriguing piece.
Danielle
|
May 17 '05
5:11 am PDT
|
|
Re: Re: And this from one of the smartest people I know (Reply to this comment)
by jo.com
This came from my daughter so you'd have to ask her. I'm just posting her thoughts.
Re: the statement "Talk to Barbara... she does take offense at being called a Jew.. that's where that came from. I'm not the one who is confused here ;)"
Others have commented about being called a Jew and it was in your original essay so... but I won't talk about anyone else's feeling. That's the point here I guess. We each have our own. Do we stop and think about each word we say? Of course not. Do we try, at least, to be somewhat sensitive to how others may feel? Just my opinion, of course, but I say I like to. You may not. Others may not care. One of the points below I believe is that what comes out of someone's mouth reflects more on them than on the person reacting to it. I think that may be an accurate observation but again you'd have to ask her. You can certainly leave a comment for her and I'll direct her to it but she is leaving for Europe for 3 1/2 weeks and finishing up school work. Her time from now until she leaves is limited (though she felt strongly about replying to the original essay so who knows). jo
|
May 11 '05
4:17 am PDT
|
|
Re: And this from one of the smartest people I know (Reply to this comment)
by drdevience
I'm sorry, but where the hell did THIS come from? Maybe I'm just blessed to live in a part of the country where this isn't an insult, but the word itself has never been an insult--Jews would probably respond with some pride--although, perhaps, once again, fear, as I'm sure many a pogrom began this way. Except, not with the word Jew...I think this is a bad example, and this is where she starts going down a confused road...
Talk to Barbara... she does take offense at being called a Jew.. that's where that came from. I'm not the one who is confused here ;)
Doc
|
May 10 '05
12:23 pm PDT
|
|
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Wow... (Reply to this comment)
by tizzo
I appreciate your honesty, Tony, jo.
And I yours. It is extremely rare these days to be able to have a civil conversation with someone whose views are as divergent from your own as your are from mine, especially if either or both parties are as passionate as you and I both seem to be. I just wanted you to know that I do not take your civility for granted.
Tony
|
May 10 '05
6:06 am PDT
|
|
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Wow... (Reply to this comment)
by jo.com
I appreciate your honesty, Tony, jo.
|
May 09 '05
3:30 pm PDT
|
|
Re: Re: Re: Re: Wow... (Reply to this comment)
by tizzo
Why are anti-Semitic and not pro-Jew the same? Is that what you said meant or did I misread that?
Jo,
We're talking basic English here. Most people are neither pro nor anti Jew, they are like me and Bush, neutral. If Bush is an anti-Semite because he is not pro-Jew, then so am I, and so is almost everyone else in the world. Such a characterization is neither accurate nor productive.
Besides unfairly stigmatizing literally billions of non-anti-Semites, it weakens the term itself. EG "Jo says that guy is an anti-Semite, stay away from him." "Oh, don't worry, Jo thinks everyone that isn't pro-Jew is an anti-Semite, even president Bush. It doesn't mean anything." Probably not what you're going for, but the only conclusion to be drawn by a reasonable person nonetheless.
For me, it even gets a little personal. I have friends who are Jewish. Probably more than I know, because I don't screen my friends based on their religion. I certainly don't screen my coworkers or business partners that way. I am no more likely to make a person my friend if they are Jewish than I would be if they were Catholic or Muslim. In other words, my feelings exactly mirror Bush's feelings, as reflected by his words and actions. By definition, that makes me decidedly not pro-Jew, as it does Bush. Nevertheless, I am (again, by definition) decidedly not anti-semitic, nor is Bush.
The bottom line is that it's just a fact that Bush is not an anti-Semite, at least not based on what can be discerned by any of his words or actions. The fact that you've had to broaden the definition of anti-Semite so drastically to defend your original assertion should be a tipoff to you that you are arguing from a position of weakness. I know you don't like Bush for a variety of reasons that you've expressed, some of them based on faulty information. EG, no fewer people have health care in this country today than did when Bush took office; abortion is no less accessible today than it was when Bush took office; hundreds of thousands fewer Iraqis are dead now than would have been if we hadn't invaded; the share of taxes paid by the rich in this country, as a percent of the total, has dramatically increased since the enactment of Bush's "tax cuts for the rich". God knows the man isn't perfect, but on every single issue on which he's wrong, without exception (runaway deficit spending comes to mind), the other guy would have been worse, according to his own platform.
Nevertheless, you're entitled to your opinion of Bush, whether it's based on accurate information or not. I personally believe that you simply concluded that someone who's as bad a guy as George W. Bush simply has to be an anti-Semite as well.
The "no Jews in his cabinet" argument is ridiculous on it's face, and I think you know it. He could not have satisfied you without making the religion of his cabinet appointments primary factor in deciding who to appoint. If you do what you're supposed to, and only appoint the best person for each job, it is inevitable that some cabinets will include a Jew, and some will not. Some will include a woman, and some will not. Some will include a black and some will not.
Thus the only possible way to ensure the inclusion of a Jew, and a woman, and a black in every single cabinet would be for every single president to make their appointments using race, gender, and religion as primary criteria. That would be absolutely wrong -- indeed one of the most immoral things anyone could ever do. It is also one of the chief complaints against political correctness, for political correctness virtually demands this insidious cynicism. It hurts some in the short term, everyone else in the long run, and doesn't help anyone at any point. Forget about arguing the moral superiority of political correctness, you've got an almost insurmountable climb convincing reasonable people that it's even OK. Again, sorry to be so direct and passionate, but this is very important, and you are so very wrong about it, IMHO.
Thanks for the civil conversation on your part as well. One thing is for sure, your prose is extremely thought provoking. I only apologize for not being able to devote the time that it fully deserves.
Tony
|
May 09 '05
2:24 pm PDT
|
|
And this from one of the smartest people I know (Reply to this comment)
by jo.com
I couldn't resist forwarding the original piece to my daughter. She is not an epinions member and has no desire to sign up thus I am posting her comments here:
I thought you might find this interesting. This person is hosting what is called a write off. People write about the same thing. She wrote the essay below. If you get a chance I'd love your thoughts.
"An issue has come up somewhere which is a recurring issue everywhere you look. This got me to thinking... which is always a bit dangerous. I've got semi-heated comment sections going surrounding this debate so I figured I may as well go ahead and get the feelings of others on this one.
_______________________
First things first. Is it really an issue, or has some group launched a propaganda campaign? (See "it's gotten way out of control here" below.) In this case, I think what she's getting at more broadly is a "legitimate" question, and good to explore--but I know on college campuses the "Right" has begun accusing everyone--professors, administration, etc--of being overly PC. In short, not allowing their hate speech (I consider it hate.) Profs who espouse any belief that is at all centrist (not even crazy liberal) are getting in trouble. So let's just be careful that we're not seeing it "everywhere" because an ideologically-bent group has made us think that.
On the other hand, I think this is a really important issue to discuss--and nothing ever went away--or got better--just because we didn't speak of it!
________________
The subject here is Political Correctness and where do we draw the line? I mean really.. it's gotten way out control here. It's gotten to the point where people not even in the given set will decide to take offense at a given term. Take the word F a g, for instance. Non-gays get majorly bent out of shape when they hear this word, yet the majority of the Gay community does not. Why is that? The difference is that the Gay community is smart enough to see things for what they are. They know that certain idiots used the word as a weapon. To disarm said idiots, they took that word and owned it. They made the meaning a positive. They took the sting out of it by turning everything around on the idiots and I applaud them for this.
______________________________
This is quite a provocative paragraph. I think she's right and wrong. Let's take her example, "f a g." Now, on some of xxx's poker sites, the lesser players will "talk trash," and "f a g" is one of their favorite insults. Which I take offense at, though: (1) not a gay man; (2) gay men will use the term themselves. And here's why.
I may not be gay, but that doesn't mean I subscribe to this culture's definite heterosexism (okay, that's a word that we could argue makes the case that PC has gone too far...but I think it's warranted), where being anything but married (entering into a contract with the state that says you are in a monogamous straight relationship...the RIght likes to have its affairs, but as long as the contract is signed, well...) is "abnormal" in the judgmental sense--"deviant" and morally corrupt. And the state encourages this (at least before Bush changed tax breaks to favor no one but the rich), by making it advantageous to be married---if you want healthcare, better be married!
My point: as long as it's okay to throw around as an insult a word that means "gay," I'm not safe to have whatever type of relationship I want--heaven forbid it's "living in sin" in a long-term monogamous relationship. So I DO take offense. But, in less personal terms, it's also clear that this is being used as an insult, so I recognize it as such, but then choose not to be offended--because, after all, being called "gay" is not insulting my sensibilities. When XXX would get those slurs, basically people mad because he beat them, we would come up with a couple of funny responses (basically to show he wasn't insulted) but in the end, he was playing a serious game and had no time for their crap.
And feminists have had a similar issue with the word "b*tch." But I maintain that there IS a difference in a feminist reclaiming the word and not minding that she is being called that--because it basically means she has crossed the socially-acceptible line for women's aggression in society, which is totally patriarchal and has no place in today's world. On the other hand (and this really doesn't have to do with your write off), I don't necessarily think it's a good thing for women to "win" by being harsh and playing the men's game. (The Margaret Thatcher problem) I think we have all the wrong standards, and women playing by them isn't great. But I digress...)
Why don't other factions do the same? Is it really preferrable to waste emotion and energy choosing to take offense when it is completely in your power to disarm the word from any negativity?
BUT, I maintain that there is a fundamental difference between a gay man deciding that he won't be offended when some thug calls him a f a g because no thoughtful, evolved person in touch with themselves does that sort of thing--you can tell more about the person who says it than about the recipient, and so the guy is repressed, frustrated, and there's something about this gay man that scares him. BUT, that doesn't give Joe Shmoe the right to call a gay man a "f a g," I don't think. It's a word born from hate and intolerance--and you'll have to excuse gay people from taking offense, if in history, many hate crimes and murders have been started by name calling. So good for the gay guy not to take offense; shame on our culture that we don't condemn the use of "f a g" as an insult, even just "casually" (like with your friends, when you don't really think anyone's gay. Just as an all-purpose insult.)
__________________________
Let's make this a Write Off, shall we?
Let's make it free-form, mostly. If you prefer answering questions straight-up then I'll go ahead and supply a few as a jumping off point:
1. What words do you choose to take offense at?
2. Are you actually a part of the group that these words are aimed at?
3. WHY do you take offense at them?
4. Not to aim at anyone in particular, but it's the first example that popped in my mind: Jew. Can you take this word and make it a positive? For example, what are the good traits of members of the Jewish community? Can you not apply those to the short form of the word and just say wow! Thanks! and take it as a compliment? (That was an example, apply this to any of the words you currently take as a slur)
_______________________
I'm sorry, but where the hell did THIS come from? Maybe I'm just blessed to live in a part of the country where this isn't an insult, but the word itself has never been an insult--Jews would probably respond with some pride--although, perhaps, once again, fear, as I'm sure many a pogrom began this way. Except, not with the word Jew...I think this is a bad example, and this is where she starts going down a confused road...
______________________
In fact.....
5. Name 5 positives for:
Black
Oriental/Asian
Jewish
Hispanic
(insert other pet groups here)
_________________________
I don't know what to say here. "Pet groups?" These are people and their ethnicities/religions--and most of them have A HISTORY of violent persecution. So there's a lot more going on that just being overly PC in saying "We don't call people Oriental" anymore.
__________________________
6. Now, whenever you hear the derogative's of those terms, can you not apply the positives to them in your mind?
7. If someone chooses to take offense at a categorization, should we all enable that and switch terms? The current African American comes to mind.. what was wrong with Black? What was wrong with Negro, for that matter... The fact is that people who are recently relocated to the states from Africa take great offense at black folks here in America for insisting on being called African-American... Do we change their preferred term yet again to please every last person? Because that will never happen... someone, somewhere, is always going to choose to be offended at something....
________________________________
What was wrong with Negro? Well, probably it had something to do with the whole "Civil Rights" thing (not so much slavery...I think that's why we don't use "boy" anymore). So there's a difference between changing names to make "every last person" happy and moving away from the name that the Opressors gave the Opressed.
Also, the reason that people who have just come here--from the Carribbean, let's say, who aren't from Africa at all--are offended is rooted in the fact that Americans cannot deal adequately with understanding race and ethnicity. Once we can understand that some people are black AND latino while some are just black/African-American, we won't care about "changing" so much.
|
May 09 '05
8:52 am PDT
|
|
Re: My two cents (Reply to this comment)
by jo.com
Still, it was an interesting read and your opinions are just that: Your opinions and you have every right to have them.
Thanks Patty for reminding me. Sometimes I forget! jo
|
May 08 '05
4:37 am PDT
|
|
My two cents (Reply to this comment)
by PattyTherre
I certainly commend you for taking such a strong stance and being forthright about it.
I don't agree with much of what you said but I certainly give you props for saying it, knowing it could muster some strong negative feelings as well as positive ones.
Some of what you said, I found myself nodding at, agreeing in principle if nothing else and some, I found myself shaking my head and saying "Wow..." Still, it was an interesting read and your opinions are just that: Your opinions and you have every right to have them.
Patty
|
May 07 '05
9:10 pm PDT
|
|
Re: I am taking this quote out of context, but (Reply to this comment)
by jo.com
and perhaps the sentiment is that my color, religion, sexuality is part of who I am. Respect it, embrace it, understand it, don't turn away form it. I am not sure what is sad about that but you can certainly feel sad if those are your emotions. jo
|
May 07 '05
8:47 pm PDT
|
|
Re: I wish Bush could read and understand this (Reply to this comment)
by jo.com
Thanks, Mike - your words really mean a lot. jo
|
May 07 '05
8:46 pm PDT
|
|
Re: Re: yo (Reply to this comment)
by jo.com
Andrew: Thanks for the information. jo
|
May 07 '05
8:44 pm PDT
|
|
I am taking this quote out of context, but (Reply to this comment)
by asafono
"...I want you to notice my color. My color is what makes me who I am."
How sad.
|
May 07 '05
8:04 pm PDT
|
|
I wish Bush could read and understand this (Reply to this comment)
by mike.holmes
My, what beautiful sentiments. I certainly do not pity you but I do respect and admire you. A very good friend of mine who is a Catholic told me that when she was 6 years old she crossed herself at the house of a Baptist family. The father of that family pointed at her with a look of hate on his face and yelled "We'll have none of that paganism in our house." It scared my friend so bad that she ran home. I have seen racial intolerance since I was a child. We are now witnessing religious intolerance and sexual preference intolerance to an extreme degree. Just this last week, the writers of the fundamentalist series of "Last Days" books made clear that Catholics, Jews, Muslims and, indeed anybody who disagrees with the writers' views are not going to heaven. If there is a God who sanctions such hateful beliefs, I don't want to go to heaven with those jerks. I digress. Thank you for your words of wisdom. As my comment title suggests, I wish our president could read them I take a hint that his policies might be wrong. I can dream.
|
May 07 '05
2:39 pm PDT
|
|
Re: yo (Reply to this comment)
by bob_tomato
Norm Mineta, the Secretary of Transportation, is of Japanese descent...
http://www.dot.gov/affairs/mineta.htm
|
May 07 '05
4:52 am PDT
|
|
Re: yo (Reply to this comment)
by jo.com
I understand what you are saying and retracted it to frame it a little bit. It is all just about my opinion. As I said below based on my perceptions (and as has been said below we take perceptions and read into them differently) this is how I feel.
There are some very good articles addressing the issue. Take them with a grain of salt if you wish.
http://www.radioislam.org/islam/english/jewishp/usa/bushadm-nyo.htm
This was written by Edward Koch and he makes a lot more money to write then I do. Of course I am sure his skin is thicker. "Buchanan was and remains an anti-Semite in the image of Father Charles Coughlin of yesterday and David Duke of today. They were repudiated by the American public, and so should he be." http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/3/20/34001.shtml (I am pointed it out because I imagine the same comments would be written to me if I had issued that statment. )
and on and on. But finally, there may be no people who are from Asia or of Asian ancestory however, this is my essay and the challenge was to talk about what I knew and felt. Others can do the same. Really, though, thanks for reading. It is amazing though, I am not sure how many words I wrote but all that people saw was that one sentence. No it wasn't even a sentence, it was part of a sentence! jo
|
May 07 '05
3:15 am PDT
|
|
yo (Reply to this comment)
by underdawg
I'm pretty sure that W doesn't have any Asians on his cabinet. I dont call him anti-Asian or whatever. Are there any Jewish leaders that you thought would've gotten into the Cabinet, that have some credentials that anyone not hiring them MUST be anti-Semetic? And are you talking about the Cabinet as a whole here, or just the inner Cabinet?
I wouldn't call myself a great champion of Jewish rights or whatever, but anti-Semetic? Hardly. I went to prom with a Jewish girl. Some of my best friends are Jewish. Just kidding, I know that doesn't mean anything, but defending the president when he is unfairly accused hardly makes anyone here anti-Semetic.
When people talk about minorities, Asians are left out most of the time, but labeling people anti-Asian as a result wouldn't be very productive.....
|
May 06 '05
5:15 pm PDT
|
|
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Bush the anti- Semite?? (Reply to this comment)
by jo.com
Thanks for your comment, Amy. PS OT Many of us use the terms PAR (pro abortion rights since I know of no one would be jumping up and down for joy at the thought of having one though one never knows - see my essay on that! rather than pro abortion, or anti life. Many PARs advocates are against the dealth penalty thus certainly can't be "labeled" pro death" "against life" etc. The other side are referred to by many as AAR anti-abortion rights. I think those two terms are the clearest and make the most sense. The take the word life and death out of it since for most of us it is really about the right of a woman to choose when and if to have children. Again another essay; another write already done. jo
|
May 06 '05
12:46 pm PDT
|
|
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Bush the anti-Semite (Reply to this comment)
by jo.com
Hi Barbara:) oh go ahead and go for it. I'm fine, really. As I said I would have deleted the essay or not read the comments if they were stressing me out. Thanks for reading and your concern! jo
|
May 06 '05
12:41 pm PDT
|
|
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Bush the anti- Semite?? (Reply to this comment)
by pearannoyed
Why may I ask does that one phrase tick people off?
Bush's actions reflect someone who is against people of the Jewish faith. Does that tick people off less?
If so then, fine -BUSH'S ACTIONS, IN MY OPINION RELECT SOMEONE WHO IS AGAINST PEOPLE OF THE JEWISH FAITH.
Your final statement here is the only one that I actually feel perfectly fine with - because you clearly state that it is your opinion.
The reason people get ticked when you blithely use a word like anti-semitic is that words carry connotations - whether that's what you meant to say or not. To say someone is anti-semitic is to equate their beliefs and actions with Nazis, Klan members and skin-heads. If that's the connotation you want to have, you have succeeded - but you would be wrong.
Being "not pro-jew" simply means that someone is not an active advocate for Jewish people or the Jewish state. I personally am not pro-Jew. I believe strongly in the rights of Jewish people to live free and worship as they believe, but I am not an advocate for the cause. But I am also not anti-Jew. I do not in any way wish for the extermination or destruction of Jewish beliefs, Jewish people or Jewish heritage.
I see the same kind of re-labeling in the abortion rights debate. Abortion rights advocates are "pro-choice" - meaning they think it should be up to a woman to decide whether or not to have a pregnancy terminated. Many in the "pro-life" camp would like to relabel the "pro-choice" camp as "anti-life", "pro-death", or "pro-abortion" all of which are incorrect, inappropriate and intentionally incindiary. Even though I am generally against abortion (especially as it's so often used merely as birth control) I would never try to label anyone as being anti-life. That term produces a visceral reaction in me that makes me feel angry with those that use it.
If you don't see how your own labeling of Bush as anti-semitic produces the same kind of visceral reaction (even among those who aren't necessarily pro-Bush) then this conversation is pointless. There are most certainly people in the world who would like to see Jewish people disappear completely; but to conclude that Bush is one of them is in no way supported by his words or actions.
That's why people get ticked, Jo.
Amy
|
May 06 '05
7:42 am PDT
|
|
Re: Re: Re: Re: Bush the anti-Semite (Reply to this comment)
by ifif1938
Boy oh boy Jo you certainly opened quite a can of worms here....I was going to write my own essay here but now I'm not sure just what to say that will be effective in stating my opinions about this subject though similar yet different than yours..I really have to think about this now.
Don't get too stressed out. It's not worth risking your health on this and I'm sure it isn't what Doc had on her mind when she started this whole thing...:)
Barbara
|
May 06 '05
6:46 am PDT
|
|
Re: Re: Re: Bush the anti-Semite (Reply to this comment)
by jo.com
Doc I didn't know how you felt about him. There are actually too many reasons for me to list. The Jewish thing is actually a minor one if you can believe it! That is not a deal breaker for me because I am so used to it. And in spite of my ranting, I believe there are more important issues like dead kids and deads woman in back alleys and dead human beings because of lack of medical care.ok well we agree on that. Here's to 2008. jo counting the days.
|
May 06 '05
4:17 am PDT
|
|
Re: Re: Bush the anti-Semite (Reply to this comment)
by drdevience
being flippant with terms makes them feel good
Nothing flippant about it, Jo. It's a sound psychological premise... as proven once again in Patti's own entry.
Having said that, if we never agree on anything else in life, we are united in wanting this jerk out of office.... if for slightly differing reasons.
Doc
|
May 05 '05
11:23 pm PDT
|
|
Re: Bush the anti-Semite (Reply to this comment)
by jo.com
Thanks Patti - you know I was thinking about that the other day - not about a kid of color but a 16 yr. old struggling with his/her sexuality or not struggling but knowing they are gay. They go through horrible times with their peers and I don't think as you said being flippant with terms makes them feel good. Well said. jo
|
May 05 '05
5:42 pm PDT
|
|
Bush the anti-Semite (Reply to this comment)
by AliventiAsylum
After reading all the comments I am hesitant to comment, but I'll jump in anyway.
I may not agree with this assessment 100% of the President, but I will say that he knowingly treads into dangerous grounds by embracing people who are decidedly anti-semitic. IMO, that is a reflection of his character. Many of the so-called "Christian" leaders he aligns himself with support Israel, yes, but because they see the Jewish people who reside there as nothing more than characters in their end-of-the-wrld scenario depicted in Revelations or the Left Behind series. They have no real concern or love of Israel and the Jewish people excpet as it serves their own twisted, deluded, and somewhat nefarious (IMO) purpose.
So while I may not agree that Bush is an anti-Semite for simply nto having a Jewish person on his cabinet, I think there are other reasons one could figure he has no real love for Jewish people.
y the way, nice essay Jo. I think it's too easy to be flip on this subject and say people should just get over the words. Say that to a 14 year old who is called "Ni--er" or ever "ni--er lover". High school is hard enough...
Patti
|
May 05 '05
4:11 pm PDT
|
|
Re: Believing in Political Correctness (Reply to this comment)
by jo.com
Thanks for reading, for understanding what I am saying and for leaving a comment about what the essay's intentions were. jo
|
May 05 '05
9:24 am PDT
|
|
Re: Re: Re: Wow... (Reply to this comment)
by jo.com
Tony - I really appeciate the civil discussion. If not I would have deleted this essay by now because stress bothers my autoimmune disorder.
You say "You don't need any information beyond common sense to know that "handicapped child" and "child with a handicap" are equivalent in every way, or that "anti-semitic" and "not pro-Jew" are not."
Handicapped child - you see the child's handicap first and foremost; the child may be brilliant, the child may be blind, the child may suffer from a heart abnormality - we don't know. We just know that all the child is IS handicapped. If you don't mind this term then you don't mind the use of colored people vs. people of color. If you don't see a distinction, there is nothing I can to do make you see it. I've tried but obviously can't. The child with a handicap - is a child first - one who happens to have a handicap second to her being a child. Perhaps it's all semantics but isn't that what this essay is about in lots of ways??
Why are anti-Semitic and not pro-Jew the same? Is that what you said meant or did I misread that?
http://www.swans.com/library/art11/pgreen63.html
How does the dictionary, the authoritative source, define anti-Semitism? Since the late nineteenth century when the word came into usage its meaning has remained consistent, "hatred, prejudice, oppression, or discrimination against Jews or Judaism." Is there any way that definition can become more inclusive? The dictionary ascribes meanings based on current usage. By repetitive use new words and new meanings of existing words are inserted and words no longer in use are dropped with each edition.
In time anti-Semitism will lose its sting by diluting the definition. There will be multiple definitions for that generic term. Just as the generic "dog" includes a Mexican hairless and a Saint Bernard, the generic "anti-Semitism" will include anti-Jewish, anti-Zionist and anti-Israel."
However obviously it is not losing its sting based on the reaction and my question is why?
I BELIEVE that Bush's actions, non actions, words and lack of them show me that he has some prejudices (Is there anyone here who has no prejudices against us? If you are a person who reads the Bible daily you'd have to convince me you don't. And you know what? It's ok. But you aren't running the country.) and has discriminated against people of the Jewish religion. I will state more to your liking: During his first term in office Bush was the only President to have no Jews in his cabinet at all. Has that changed? When that statement was made he had many minorities in his cabinet. People who were of the Jewish faith however were not among them. Sigh...I could be writing reviews and making big bucks. jo
|
May 05 '05
9:23 am PDT
|
|
Believing in Political Correctness (Reply to this comment)
by mumun
I'm not convinced that everyone who uses the term "political correctness" has the same thing in mind. Your feelings about the vocabulary used to describe identity is very clear, and I greatly appreciate your writing on the subject.
I also appreciated your comment about tolerance: tolerating the other is something very different than embracing the other. It's an important distinction, as the word 'tolerance' is repeated all the time without any motion toward embracing human diversity.
|
May 05 '05
9:08 am PDT
|
|
|
|
