Re: Amerind an offensive term (was: Early Amerind assimilation
Eric Brunner (firstname.lastname@example.org)
11 Aug 1996 15:16:00 GMT
Stephen Barnard (email@example.com) wrote:
: Eric Brunner wrote:
: > Stephen Barnard (firstname.lastname@example.org) wrote:
: > : Joel and Lynn Gazis-Sax wrote:
: > : > The point that this so-called
: > : > anthropologist cannot understand is that the offensiveness of a term
: > : > is a matter for the recipient to decide. You are allowed one mistake
: > : > in polite circles, but after you are informed it is offensive, you
: > : > have no further excuse.
: > : The problem that arises is when the intersection of the sets of
: > : permissible terms, gathered over all the interested parties, is the null
: > : set.
: > The utility of purpose of the grand unification of nomenclature is exactly
: > what again please?
: The utility is to have a term to use that doesn't offend anyone.
Umm, so you've been informed to the contrary and you still are compelled to
find a universalism... Sounds like Stephen Russel got it right on the money
when he wrote that this was really about people as (other peoples') data.
Now then, just what universally applicable utterances do you have in mind?
There are miles of text written "about Indians", from 1492ad (or ca 1000ad
if you've a mind to add a very small additional body of works), in script
and print, in a wide variety of European languages. Know of any inobvious
ones which were or are true and useful?
Oh, there is no point leaving the "so-called anthropologist" question lie
silent any longer is there?