linguistlist.org>
Editor for this issue: Karen Milligan <karenlinguistlist.org>
aol.com>In response to several of the latest salvos, I would like to extend my warmest invitation to all conquered and otherwise forcibly incorporated peoples around the world to stop fighting for their separate identities, languages, faiths, political goals, etc., and thank their lucky stars for having been spared outright annihilation by obviously morally, technologically, and organizationally superior cultures. To those not so lucky all we can say is "oops, sorry about that, Chief". Open discussion is nice, but eventually there comes a point where you have to fish or cut bait. In most places linguists have to deal with the repercussions of political issues- it's almost impossible to avoid it. From an intellectual point of view it certainly can be stimulating to dance around the subtleties of the semantics, but in the end it comes down to dealing with the fact of mass murder, theft, suppression of survivors, and self-serving denials or laughter-filled admissions. Maybe one might deflect the issue of degree of personal responsibility off onto the group, or from the current generation to those preceding. Some nations have had their noses rubbed in what they've done and have had to come to grips with it. Those with nobody to tell them what to do continue to waffle, when they have any moral pangs about it at all. While it is perhaps unfortunate that the real world sometimes intrudes into the ivory tower, that's just the way it is. Jess Tauber zylogyMail to author|Respond to list|Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issue
uconnvm.uconn.edu>For whatever reason (perverse curiousity, perhaps), I read Patrick C. Ryan's last missive (Vol.11.928) in the Political Action/Linguistic Organisations thread. And though I've found Ryan's numerous messages on the topic to be largely devoid of points, he certainly -- possibly inadvertently -- raised one in the final line of the last one. The relevant snippet follows: > Well, if one grants the premise that minority groups have a "right" to be > hypersensitive, then your logic is impeccable. > > I do not. And I think it is time for minorities, like the Amerindians, to > identify themselves as Americans --- at which point the controversy becomes > moot. If Ryan doesn't find that offensive, then I'm not entirely shocked that he doesn't find the "chief" mascot offensive either. There may indeed be a legitimate discussion to be had as to whether the LSA should wade into the debate (though I'll admit that after looking at what has been written and seeing what the LSA's actual plans are, I can't understand why it wouldn't). But there's no damn way that there can be a legitimate discussion about whether the mascot in question is offensive. IT IS, as is Ryan's quote above. In an earlier message (Vol.11.927), Ryan provided a supposed analogy with the Vikings which is either deeply flawed or simply hateful. > I think the bottom line here is that Scandinavians have never > protested against the use of the term 'Vikings', and sheepherders are > momentarily quiet on the subject of 'Rams'. To my knowledge, the ancestors of most present-day 'Vikings' fans never partook in the wholesale massacres of the Scandinavian peoples, nor does their society persist in attempting to erase most traces (i.e., any traces not beneficial for tourism and financial gain) of the Viking culture(s). The flip-side of this should be obvious. - Douglas - ----------------------- U-1145, Department of Linguistics University of Connecticut 341 Mansfield Road Storrs, CT (USA) 06269 During 1999-2000 academic year: 709.737.2332 (o) 709.739.5578 (h) http://www.sp.uconn.edu/~dow96001Mail to author|Respond to list|Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issue
ufl.edu>> >-------------------------------- Message 4 ------------------------------- > >Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2000 06:49:37 -0400 >From: Trace Mansfield <tmansfieMail to author|Respond to list|Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issue