> I beg your pardon, Robin, it is totally comparable when people are being
> shot for being "towelheads", when soldiers are told in their training to
> "kill as many towelheads as you can", when pig ignorant orientalism (I'll
> give you the references if you like) underlie the policies of the State
> Department and the US Army which is making such a total fuckup of Baghdad.
> It's totally offensive, and like all racism it's an offence with murderous
> consequences.
>
> This is making me angry, so I will butt out.
>
> A
This is driving me out of my skull.
I spent much of my young life in Glasgow (didn't you spend time in
Melbourne?) so I have it burned into my bones how it's possible to
dehumanise and alienate another religious community by means of offensive
epithets.
That was raw, and my father, a Church of Scotland minister, used to
regularly turn-down drunks who'd turn up and try to get him sign forms that
said they were "regular church attenders" so they could join the local
Orange Lodge and beat up Catholics.
So it's not exactly as if I'm naive when it comes to the way words can
influence action.
What bothers me about this is that you're flattening a scale between
Richard's "towelheads" via (has this particularly vile term come up yet?)
"gooks" in Nam to -- now! -- Abu Ghraib.
But you're right, this argument is going absolutely bloody nowhere.
May I suggest that we call in an independent arbitator to rule on this?
How about Mark Weiss? Someone I'd guess we'd both trust.
R.
Like you, Alison, I seem to have lost my temper on this issue, but I happen
to think it matters how words are used and in which context, and it seems to
me that you're what you're doing is exactly parallel to Richard on his worst
hair day.
I'll stand by whatever Mark decides on this, if he bothers to get involved.
(Sorry, I couldn't resist this:
"pig ignorant orientalism"
I've read Said too, so don't patronise me.
<g>
R2.)
|