Frosch (
4 Feb 95 15:42:16 GMT

<> writes:

> (Frosch) wrote:

>> you don't understand the point, do you? or are you so naive
>> that you thought the derogatory terms were ones that aborigines in
>> australia use for _themselves_?

>I was not informed in the e-mail that "abo" is derogatory. And

you trip yourself up every time, don't you? you wrote,
'and the more polite term, native'. so you knew, at the very
minimum, that the first term was not 'polite'.

>as to whether I would be surprised by aborigines calling
>each other by a derogatory term, no, I would not. Your
>experience of the world, as you term it, shows its limits
>on this question. Did you know that American blacks often
>use the word "nigger" to refer to each other?

yes, i know that. but unless you happen to be an american
black (you haven't stated that, i make no assumption), you have
no right to toss that word around. at least a minimal sensitivity
to that issue would be in order.

given the (non) accuracy of your past guesses with regard
to non-u.s. situations, and your lack of interest in gathering
further information, i could care less what would "surprise" you
in the australian context. i have already named two of the
positive self-referential terms used by australian aborigines.

>you wrote "australian" and meant
>> "non-aboriginal australian"

>That is pure guess on your part, and false. Once again,
>you show an almost morbid inability to accept that you
>less than telepathic.

you used, for the second time in several days, a distinction
between "australians" and "aborigines", linguistically stripping
aborigines of their citizenship, which given the history of the
country up until the late 60's, amounts to a pretty low blow.

your first attempt is unambiguous within the context of your
discussion of european colonizers:

Message-ID: <3gtmpe$>

:I was speaking within the context of American society. I don't
:know how the word "black" is used outside it. From what I've
:heard, for example, Australians don't call aborigines "black".
:Maybe they do. I don't know what the French or the Dutch called
:the particular Africans they conquered. Do you?

the second iteration of the distinction between "australians"
(colonizers) and "aborigines" (the colonized) refers back to the
first message, and plays on the same concept:

Message-ID: <3gvjej$>

:[...] I have no idea of, nor any particular interest
:in, the possible uses to which the word "black" is put in
:other countries, and I was certainly not discussing these other
:uses. [...]
:Furthermore I was e-mailed a description of the
:terms used by Australians for aborigines, and the main term
:given was "abos", with a second, more polite term "natives".
:Which is more or less what I had expected when I speculated
:that "black" was not used. [...]

>, just like you wrote "hindu" in two
>> posts (even after several objections) and meant "from the indian
>> subcontinent", not "an adherent of the hindu religion".

>Wrong again. Here's an idea: when you read something, try
>assuming that the writer meant what he said.

that's exactly where i'm starting from, jerrybro. you used
the term "hindu" as a designator of "race", and you did it twice,
even after the issue had been discussed. i have no doubt at all
that you meant it.

>> and none of your posts have given me the impression that you have
>> a broad enough experience of the world to make those judgments in
>> any informed way. indeed, more information tends to lead one to
>> abandon the pre-formed judgments altogether, in my experience.

>Then teach me facts. The criticism, "you don't know enough to
>talk" isn't good for anything except annoying someone who may
>know much more than you.

here's a fact for starters, try not to find it odd:

when you generalize about human beings, you will almost always
be wrong.

>> now, if my consideration is merely alleged, it would scarcely
>> help the individuals, would it?

>That's right.

good. now stop complaining.