Did anyone else happen to catch The Simpsons last night (USA / Canada)? Homer became a tow-truck driver and was about to tow a vehicle parked on a handicapped spot next to a fire hydrant and he pointed out the "meaningless novelty plate" or something -- it read "I (heart) Zvlkx". It was on just for a brief second and my parents don't have TiVo or similar so I couldn't pause or rewind. Just wondering if my eyes are playing tricks on me.

Happy Canadian Thanksgiving...!

Ooh HITW we recorded it so I will watch tonight (after Heroes) and see what I can see!

I would say happy Columbus Day but I don't think it's entirely p.c. these days...

Good enough reason to say it, then.

I was thinking the same.

__________________________________
'We're all mad here. I'm mad, you're mad." [said the Cat.]
"How do you know I'm mad?" said Alice.
"You must be," said the Cat, "Or you wouldn't have come here."
- Lewis Carroll, Alice's Adventures In Wonderland

re: pc

I feel it is incumbent on those of us on the fforums to be as un pc as we can. This is to redress the balance of the creeping mediocrity that is all about us.

Pick up your golliwog, and use genderist terminology!

The trouble is that pc terminology, like so many things, stems from good intentions but taken way beyond what is reasonable. (Road to Hell being well-paved, perhaps?)

Doesn't equating golliwogs to a racist slur say more about the people banishing them from the "Noddy" books than it does about the readers or the author?

Holding a door open for someone,or giving up my seat on public transport is a matter of manners, not an attempt to denigrate someone.

And there is no such thing as positive discrimination!

Skids, I would very much apreciate if you thought about "reasonable" a bit more. Nobody has to act dumb when he or she criticizes language or culture.

Not everyone who says that a ministrel is a racist distortion might condone the vandalisation of a book. There might just be a difference between identifying an affronting stereotype, analyzing its use and what conclusion can be drawn about the world-view of the users, and outright censorship.

I have not read the Blyton books, so I can not give an opinion about the role of the golliwog there. But don't you see the possibility in principle of using the blackface caricature in a way that will insult black people? And wouldn't that mean that you should take a closer look when you see it used?

(By the way, I think that ministrel is a valiant contribution to popular culture, as long as you reflect on the context it exists in.)

If I remember correctly, they were just characters. All the characters were toys, and golliwogs were popular toys. I do not recall them being used in an overly rascist way, but then I have not read the books for a long time.

__________________________________
'We're all mad here. I'm mad, you're mad." [said the Cat.]
"How do you know I'm mad?" said Alice.
"You must be," said the Cat, "Or you wouldn't have come here."
- Lewis Carroll, Alice's Adventures In Wonderland

The possibility in principle of anything could cause offence to someone.

The question is - where do you draw the line? Because in my experience, some groups get special treatment and others are just expected to put up with it.

Let's take an example - the Simpsons. Extremely popular cartoon show, shown all over the world and has been running for many years.

Suppose I decided to take offence at the occasional appearance of an annoying leprachaun type character in the Simpsons with a dodgy "Oirish" accent. It's irritating and also perpetuates the myth that all Irish people are stupid drunks who constantly starting fights.

Does that mean that the episode should never be shown again and anyone who laughs is a bad person? Or that the character should be removed? If I did make a complaint, do you think I'd be perceived as just having no sense of humour and being some kind of weirdo?

Are my hurt feelings about a negative portrayal of my race less important than another racial group?

If the show had a character who was Jewish, had a big nose and was shown as a miser, there would be uproar.

If the show had a character who was black and was shown as being in some way inferior, again, there would be uproar.

In most cases, the intent is the issue. People who intend something nasty will always find a way to get it across. But PC really is only applied to certain groups and the rest of us have to put up with it. So basically what we're talking about is reverse discrimination.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 10/15/2007 08:55AM by xmorpheus.

We end up with strange situations, whatever way you look at it. Here in Australia they say that racial villification is against the law - not arguing with that one. With one exception, the English - they are fair game - it'sjust a good job we can take it!

I think the Goodies nailed this one in the vegetable rights episode. Veggies have feelings to - it's just a matter of perspective.

For very good reasons German law uses the same aproach.* But that is for extreme situations I hope we would not be arguing about.

But in more everyday life, what deters you from coming to an intelligent conclusion? I am not aware if the Irish stereotypes you mentioned were/are used to justify violence and repression. (strange if I think about it - all commentaries about British-Irish conflict I have encountered only said "well it's religious" and left it at that...) That could make a difference, wouldn't you say?

And why shouldn't you analyze why someone uses negative stereotypes? Is it to denigrate the portrayed in the eyes of others or to laugh about those that take their perceived identity too serious? Depending on the result, you might or might not find reasons to complain.

Finally, there isn't one line to draw. The issue of using a gender-neutral language is much more pronounced in German, and thus I tend to use it in most circumstances, since a lot of women perceive the use of male-only grammatical forms as an exclusion from the debate. On the other hand, if the company I am in has more issues with what they see as the "clumsiness" or even faultiness of the neutral forms, I stay with the traditional forms. Being courteous is not always the same.

____
*not concerning the English. We have our very own Saxonians for that purpose.


P. S. Did someone find out about the licence plate?

In Germany, the KISS logo is banned because of what the 2s' resemble-
not that the band itself has anything to do with Nazis-
but it makes all the German imports rather obvious...

Hmmm, English language gender-neutral...
In writing at least, it's simple enough to use "s/he" (the male-only was never entirely neutral, as you would not refer to "his pregnancy", etc.) instead of just "he"...

Some of the others get a bit bogged down, but they usually just switch it to plural-
which would still be a royal pain in gender obsessed launguage like French-
why they decided that even ashtrays should have a gender, I'll never know...

**************************************
Signature or shameless self-promotion?
You decide:

[www.myspace.com]

**************************************

I don't have a problem with "All men are created equal" because I can think beyond the word "men" all by my little self. Yes Virginia, I really can.

The need to say "all men, women, children, whites, blacks, purples, gays, aliens, republicans, middle-managers, vegans, and fans of the star wars prequels are created equal" is pointless and irritating. Aren't we smarter than that?

I can read The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn without the admonitory preface. I don't really mind that every mention of the Catholic religion in film includes reference to Ancient Secret Evil Conspiracies. But that's because I know better.

I wish everyone knew better. That's the impossible dream.

The Golliwogs in Noddy became an issue because they were uniformly (one supposes, 'genetically') bad and naughty, not simply because they were 'black' as such. Notably, at about the same time, Dahl also changed the descriptions of the little factory workers in "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory" from pigmies due to similar pressure (early illustrated editions also draw them as pigmies); not because they were naughty but because they were quite plainly imported (abducted?) African slave labour and were depicted as happy to be such.

The Black and White Minstrels (to whom I think Prinz refers) were, in my opinion, jolly fun entertainment. However, once again, they are essentially slaves saying stupid things because they are mentally inferior and rejoicing in their slavery. As such I can see why their descendants might see this as offensive.

Dickens rewrote specific portions of the later chapters of "Oliver Twist" after being chastised by a close and respected friend (who happened to be Jewish) about his depiction of Fagin. He couldn't rewrite the earlier chapters because they had already been published in the serialised first printing. Fagin's Jewishness in the latter half of the book is still mentioned, but only to a fractional proportion compared with the first half. Dickens was well known for his public opposition to anti-semitism but used the word "Jew" freely enough in a derogatory sense in personal discussion; illustrating perhaps, simply, that humans are complex and often contradictory creatures.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/16/2007 07:52AM by robert.

(Double Post.)



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/16/2007 06:58AM by robert.

Interestingly, I got a Christmas catalog the other day and there was a set of golliwogs in it.

They were simply referred to as "Nostalgic toys". Not even the intermediate term of "Golly".

We introduced a new equalities and diversty policy at work in the past fortnight and have already had Christmas banned lest it offend someone. I'm not Christian and am highly offended by the idea that someone should presume to speak for me on the assumption that I am so hyper-sensitive that I couldn't possibly tolerate a single angel decoration without my tender feelings being damaged beyond repair, likely to the point of requiring compensation.

We haven't been advised whether we are allowed to celebrate Winterlude or Winterval, both of which are suggestions I do find offensive.

We could always just go back to celebrating the season of Yule, which was the original pagan festival at that time of year prior to Christianity superimposing the Christmas festival.

Exactly! Can't remember any mention in the Bible about Advent candles or Christmas trees, and who is Santa but an archetype of the mysterious-but-benevolent elf variety?

_googles winterlude_ What is offensive about a Canadian winter festival?

I ask in genuine curiosity here...

__________________________________
'We're all mad here. I'm mad, you're mad." [said the Cat.]
"How do you know I'm mad?" said Alice.
"You must be," said the Cat, "Or you wouldn't have come here."
- Lewis Carroll, Alice's Adventures In Wonderland