I'm with Jason on this one. Iam more than aware of the power of language. But I never understood the "of color" adjetive. This politically correct speech forces people to torture the language.
What would you make of me reverting to the potitically incorrect New Jersey social categories that I grew up with? People referred to Puerto Ricans and Cubans as "Spanish." Are you going to bring out the language police because I didn't use the "correct" term, "Hispanic?" (Which by the way means Spanish, the same thing). Let me make another point by raising the issue of context. Would there be charges of racially insensitive language if the it was a reporter of color who wrote the newspaper article? As the late 20th century philospher, Arsenio Hall, use to say:"Some things just want to make you say 'Hmmm?' David Wilson Loring Park On Fri, 17 Dec 2004, phaedrus wrote: > > A Star Tribune reporter was disciplined Thursday > > after he disclosed that he wrote an e-mail to a > > Minneapolis police official that contained > > racially insensitive language. > > > > David Chanen, a police reporter, told editors that > > he used the term "colored officers" in an e-mail > > sent Wednesday to Minneapolis Police Inspector > > Donald Banham, who is black. > > > > Star Tribune Managing Editor Scott Gillespie sent a > > letter Thursday to Minneapolis Police Chief Bill > > McManus saying that the newspaper "owes you and your > > department a deep and sincere apology" for the > > language used in the e-mail. > > > > McManus said Thursday night that the newspaper's > > apology "should be made to Minneapolis Police > > Department officers of color, not to me. Certainly, > > they are all offended by it. This isn't the 1960s > > anymore." > > I don't intend to be obtuse, but I don't get this one. > > Officer Of Color = OK > Colored Officer = Not OK > > As far as I can tell, these say exactly the same thing > - semantically they differentiate officers with color > from officers without color. The general concept of > using "color" to distinguish cultural heritage seems a > bit off to me, but the point is, I don't understand > the difference between the two statements. Why is one > OK and the other not? > > This would not be the first time I've made the mistake > of not knowing that something is culturally offensive, > but can someone explain this one to me? > > - Jason Goray > Sheridan NE > > (A person of relatively pale pigment, especially in > the winter.) > > > > __________________________________ > Do you Yahoo!? > Send holiday email and support a worthy cause. Do good. > http://celebrity.mail.yahoo.com > REMINDERS: > 1. Think a member has violated the rules? Email the list manager at [EMAIL > PROTECTED] before continuing it on the list. > 2. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait. > > For state and national discussions see: http://e-democracy.org/discuss.html > For external forums, see: http://e-democracy.org/mninteract > ________________________________ > > Minneapolis Issues Forum - A City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy > Post messages to: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls > REMINDERS: 1. Think a member has violated the rules? Email the list manager at [EMAIL PROTECTED] before continuing it on the list. 2. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait. For state and national discussions see: http://e-democracy.org/discuss.html For external forums, see: http://e-democracy.org/mninteract ________________________________ Minneapolis Issues Forum - A City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
