|
|
Re: soc.subculture.usenet moderated (Re: RFD: soc.culture.us
Cameron Laird (claird@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM)
8 Nov 1995 07:52:49 -0600
In article <47pleh$39j@electron.rutgers.edu>,
Ben Weiner <bweiner@electron.rutgers.edu> wrote:
.
.
.
>Well, it's not confusion so much as Chris's persistence, since AFAIK
>he is the only one posting really strong objections.
I agree--that Mr. Stone is the only one with name ob-
jections, that is.
.
.
.
>BUT be prepared for an enormous flame war when somebody proposes
>a group and there is disagreement on whether it should go in
>culture.* or subculture.*.
[imaginary, but
apt, illustration
of same]
.
.
SOOOO true.
Well, we certainly have flamefests now. If we de-
cided on soc.subculture.usenet, the responsible thing
would be to explain in the charter what we intend for
the new subhierarchy. My preference: soc.culture is
for any (*any*) traditional *ethnos*, that is, descent
group which more or less shares language, locale, life-
style, ... (so soc.culture.yukaghir is legitimate,
even if only a few score of indigenes remain), while
soc.sub-culture categorizes elective groups--netizens,
Rotary Club members, former volunteers in Medecins
sans frontieres, Unitarians (they aren't *born* that
way, right?--but Mennonites are, in some legitimate
sense). Kurds, even Kurds in Turkey, constitute a
culture; homosexual women in New York City are a sub-
culture. Yes, I'm cringing now at that "sub-" prefix,
but I don't have a better suggestion, yet. Also, I
recognize that both those identifications have seri-
ous political resonances. My only argument there is
that metropolitan lesbians and "mountain Turks" deal
with situations that no naming scheme is going to
solve.
--
Cameron Laird http://starbase.neosoft.com/~claird/home.html
claird@NeoSoft.com +1 713 623 8000 #227
+1 713 996 8546 FAX
|