Re: Amerind an offensive term (was: Early Amerind assimilation
Toby Cockcroft (hegeman@wchat.on.ca)
Wed, 14 Aug 1996 11:14:34 -0400
In article <4uqlr7$300@news.sdd.hp.com>, geroldf@sdd.hp.com (Gerold Firl) wrote:
In article <hegeman-1008961716390001@ts19-7.slip.uwo.ca>,
hegeman@wchat.on.ca (Toby Cockcroft) writes:
|> People whom for so long have been at the mercy and control of a dominant
|> culture have begun to assert themselves and gain control of their lives
|> through the act of self naming. However, the dominant culture always acts
|> to maintain control and the status quo. The hegemony of the dominant
|> culture appropriates the new terms diminishing their symbolic power.
>So, when the negroes declared that they found the term "negro"
>offensive, and wanted to be called "colored", and mainstream culture
>said "ok, if that's what you want to be called, that's what we'll call
>you", that diminished the symbolic power of the term? Then the colored
>people decided that "black" would be better, but whitey was a little
>too accomodating, so the blacks declared that they were "afro-american";
>do you see how silly this is?
>
I don't see that as silly and I think that what you describe is an
excellent example. If you think something else is at work here then what
is it? Seriously Gerold if you are going to shoot me down poitnting out
that you think my theory is "silly" just aint gonna cut it whatever
happened to the Hegelian dialectic?
Toby Cockcroft MA Anthropology University of Western Ontario
|