Life In 19x19

hyperpape wrote:
Indeed. Whenever I'm speaking with someone I know is a bit prejudiced, I like to correct them and make sure they're using any of the relevant slurs. It really is better to keep everything in the open.

What you do with your prejudiced friend is a good example of what I meant.

Instead of correcting his words, you should talk about his ideas, and try to change those ideas. If the ideas remain, it really does not matter which word he/she uses - it will still sound offensive and it will still be meant put somebody down. And if you continue correcting the words, your friend will end up with an ever-growing list of words he cannot use to express his/her ideas in your presence... This leads to frustration, and guess what outlet this frustration will take? I bet you his prejudiced ideas get even more prejudiced, because "its all because of those darned Whoevers, they are so fussy, make my life messed up, I hate them..."

Eventually, this leads to loss of friendship, one way or another.

I think the important word here is not 'correct them', but rather 'explain to them'.
Words can hurt, true, but only because we make them hurtful. Otherwise, they're just dumb words, sweet and cute, with no evil intentions whatsoever...

Javaness wrote:

Peter Hansmeier wrote:To Americans, oriental sounds old-fashioned and possibly offensive, perhaps a shade more neutral than negro. No American politician who fears reelection would ever use either word, especially in Washington (a state with a large Asian population) where use of the word was banned. We use East Asia and East Asian in place of the Orient and oriental. Some groups, such as the CFR (American think tank and publisher of Foreign Affairs), split Japan and Korea off into "Northeast Asia."

That's interesting and useful to know. I simply don't associate anything derogatory with the word Oriental, but if I used this in the USA looks like I would end up as a social reject.

Me neither, and I'm from the state of Washington (and don't recall ever hearing about the passed law)

John Fairbairn wrote:But one of the benefits of my recent trips to the USA was learning just how much ordinary Americans reject PC when they don't have to publicly watch what they say. I don't mean they are redneck. I mean they are sensible.

I reject PC every chance I get. Naturally, there are some things that just make sense. I always try to avoid offending... but most PC talk is just plain silly and idiotic.

John Fairbairn wrote:To bring it back to go, one of the PC elements that irritate me is using "he" and "she" for Black and White.

This one is silly and idiotic.

"journeyperson"

@Bantari: I was being sarcastic. In my part of the country, we don't have a problem with people changing words. We have more of a problem with people calling Black people "[a slur that I can't post on these boards]."

@JohnFairbairn: It would be interesting to hear an explanation of why you think the adventures of bureaucratic jargon are a part of this discussion. Just because people use the word "PC" doesn't mean that the phenomena are connected.

hyperpape wrote:@Bantari: I was being sarcastic. In my part of the country, we don't have a problem with people changing words. We have more of a problem with people calling Black people "[a slur that I can't post on these boards]."

I missed the sarcasm.
My bad.

You guys need to get out more.

The reason I do not like the term "Oriental" is because it is too general and has no consistent definition. It is MUCH broader than the terms "American", or even "European", I think.

nagano wrote:The reason I do not like the term "Oriental" is because it is too general and has no consistent definition. It is MUCH broader than the terms "American", or even "European", I think.

I think it encompasses a broader land area than either of the other two. But that's because the counterpart to "Oriental" is "Occidental," not "American" or "European." I'm pretty sure the occident would be everything to the west of Turkey (until you reach the Pacific, at least,) while the orient is Turkey and everything to the east.

I've heard that some people find the term offensive, but I never had a clear understanding why. Upon reflection, probably it reminds older people (or those with a strong sense of cultural history) from the Hong Kong area or some parts of Japan of the British Empire and its colonies. I wonder if Indians (as in from India) also find the term offensive. One could certainly imagine so, especially thinking about things like Kipling's poem "The Burden of the White Man." ...or for that matter, almost everything Kipling wrote.

I actually kind of like the notation that the white stones are female in the absence of a specific player who is male.

I can't miss an opportunity to contribute to this PC debate.

Of course I hate PC, but I don't like racism either.

To me "oriental" is not in the least pejorative. I might say that "I like oriental girls" where there is a hint of mystery or exoticism implied and it certainly beats reeling off a long list of countries.

Perhaps also there are "oriental" ways like bowing which may seem quaint to the westerner but which are indicative of greater respect shown to others.

On the other hand when an Irish colleague (a good friend) made derogatory remarks about our Indian and Bangladeshi staff, I told him that "a paddy and a paki - it's all the same to me"

richardamullens wrote:To me "oriental" is not in the least pejorative. I might say that "I like oriental girls" where there is a hint of mystery or exoticism implied and it certainly beats reeling off a long list of countries.

And that, gentlemen, is one of the associations that makes the term demeaning--the suggestion that the orientals are nice little mysteries to be studied.

hyperpape wrote:

richardamullens wrote:To me "oriental" is not in the least pejorative. I might say that "I like oriental girls" where there is a hint of mystery or exoticism implied and it certainly beats reeling off a long list of countries.

And that, gentlemen, is one of the associations that makes the term demeaning--the suggestion that the orientals are nice little mysteries to be studied.

I disagree. This is your imagination. I could substitute "French" but that would not make the adjective "French" demeaning. It is not even a demeaning usage.

Look, the whole "mysterious orientals" thing is a centuries old trope, that was constantly a part of the colonialist mindset. Calling asian women mysterious and exotic is similarly a trope that's been around for awhile.

Now, maybe you just magically happened to stumble upon the same images that have been around for hundreds of years and there's no connection whatsoever, but it's not my imagination that there's this history.

And it wouldn't make sense to apply those comments to the French. No one would say it, and no one would understand it if you said it. Whereas anyone reading those comments about mysterious asian women will find them very familiar. Each society is subject to its own set of stereotypes. If you want to insult southerners, you call them inbred rednecks, if you want to insult the french, you talk about military history and baths.

How offensive these stereotypes are depends on lots of factors--relative prominence in society, power relations, etc. That's part of the reason oriental is not considered so offensive in the US--east asians have a relatively high status (rule: pick on someone your own size). Similarly, most of the time, french stereotypes are (at worst) in bad taste, but they were quite a bit nastier in 2003 and 2004.

hyperpape wrote:Look, the whole "mysterious orientals" thing is a centuries old trope, that was constantly a part of the colonialist mindset. Calling asian women mysterious and exotic is similarly a trope that's been around for awhile.

Now, maybe you just magically happened to stumble upon the same images that have been around for hundreds of years and there's no connection whatsoever, but it's not my imagination that there's this history.

I think that we should celebrate the differences between people - and orientals are mysterious to a westerner. It is no stereotype, they have a different culture, language, history ... so they have an outlook we should seek out - they have something to say to us.

And it wouldn't make sense to apply those comments to the French. No one would say it, and no one would understand it if you said it.

You're mistaken. The French are mysterious to the English. There are all sorts of differences - from the way they greet each other, the meanings of various gestures, down to the interpretation to be placed on the positions of cutlery on a plate !

Norman Schwarzkopf's "Going to war without France is like going deer hunting without your accordion" may poke fun at the French but it shows an appreciation of their culture and, I think, a fondness.

It is the image that you associate with a word that may cause it to become pejorative. More likely that you associate it with "inscrutability" - but that is not the way I think.

Then they started to ban crucifixes in schools

This is yet another topic; not about political correctness but about human and basic rights to freedom of religion. Too OT for this forum though.

Bantari wrote:

John Fairbairn wrote:

The use of the term is considered pretty politically incorrect in the U.S. Since it defines a people based on where they live, "orient" meaning, I think, from the east, it is hard to deny that it is somewhat Eurocentric.

Of course the Americans are entitled to their view, but when we write in Europe we are at our centre, and the usual way to Japan etc from here is eastwards.

Americans can often forget they live in a bigger world. Questions such as "Hey guys have you seen the latest journal?" on this forum when they mean American Go Journal can curdle the milk in your coffee if you get up in Europe on the wrong side of the bed or have a bad hair day.

The issue is not words, but people who use them and ideas they have. If people start using good words in a bad way, its the people and the ideas which are bad, not the words. But people are lazy try to take the easy way to simply 'forbid' the words, fooling themselves into thinking that this will solve the problem. But then new words come, and since the ideas are still there, the new words will soon become 'bad'. And so on...

So what are we supposed to do, change our vocabulary every few years?!?
This is preposterous, like the whole idiotic idea of 'political correctness.'

Its the underlying ideas which need to be dealt with, not the words.

THAT should be curdling your coffee, not the fact that somebody forgot to specify which 'go journal' they refer to. Or which 'go server', or which 'rank level' or whatever... Because Europeans and Australians and Asians and Africans are as guilty of all the above as are the Americans. I even heard an Eskimo referring to himself and his tribe as 'the people'.

It would be nice to agree with you, Bantari, but unfortunately I cannot. Of course, it is more important to challenge the ideas than the language, and of course, the real problem is with the ideas, not with the language. But language shapes thought, and the words we use are important. Words reinforce prejudices.

Right now, I have RSI and am not meant to be typing much. And I have a BGA Council meeting on Saturday which I have work to do for, involving typing. Oops. As a result, I'm not going to write much more in this post; I will come back to this debate later, if people are interested, to explain why words matter, and how challenging language is a useful route into challenging ideas.

(Come to think of it, I'm going to come back to it even if people aren't interested; I am sick and tired of the constant use of the meaningless phrase "political correctness" being used as an excuse to be inconsiderate, because the use of consideration is dismissed as "being PC".)