On 3/18/2014 10:24 AM, "Ola Fosheim Grøstad"
<[email protected]>" wrote:
However, I am upset about the widespread US term "caucasian", not
because it is a bad word, but because of the Aryan connotations that has
some seriously bad vibes to it after 2WW and the nazi worship of
"scandinavian genes".
The term "caucasian" is incredibly bad taste, and I find it offensive. I
cringe when I cross off "caucasian" on US papers. It is if I am forced
to declare myself Aryan.
I find that interesting. This is the first I've ever heard of
"caucasian" being even potentially offensive.
In the US, referring to an ethnicity by the name of a color is somewhat
borderline on the offensive/inoffensive scale. And by that I mean,
nobody really knows whether or not they should avoid saying it.
Two specific colors, "yellow" and "red", are pretty much accepted as
"you just don't say it" because they (apparently - it was well before my
time) had a history of being used as derogatory.
But "black" and "white" are less clear. Ever since the US civil rights
movement, "colored" has become accepted as a term that "you just don't
say" (despite still being used as the "C" in the NAACP, confusingly
enough). So "black" was used to replace it. But then for some reason I'm
completely ignorant of, many people started considering "black" to be
taboo too, and started insisting people say "African American", which I
find rather goofy since not everyone of that apperently-unnameable
ethnicity is American at all.
So americans never know whether it's ok to say "black". And they know
it's not ok to say "red" or "yellow" (unless you simply mean "yellow" as
"afraid", but you better make darn sure nobody's going to misunderstand
you, which is probably why even though "green" and "blue" are still
occasionally used to mean "jealous" and "sad", "yellow" is no longer
used as "afraid" unless pronounced in a clearly "Wild West" accent like
"yelluh"). So all that question and taboo about colors leads to
uncertainty about whether it's still ok to say "white", even though
"white" is still used all the time anyway and I've never seen anyone get
offended.
So that uncertainty leads americans to use "caucasion" (apparently
derived from the extremely academic term "caucasoid", or so I've been
told) just out of paranoia, since it's seen as far too pedantic and
technical to possibly be offensive.
But then, the African-descendent counterparts of "caucasion" and
"caucasoid", ie "negro" and "negroid", are taboo because they sound too
much like the word we're expected to refer to as "the N word" (even
though rappers of that ethnicity have famously tossed it around like
it's nothing - which I always assumed was partly done to dispel the
negative connotations, but I guess some people would rather keep it as
offensive - personally I don't give a crap, I just wish people would
make up their minds). But of course, in many languages, "negro" is
literally the word for the color "black", so go figure.
It's all a rediculous mess, really. I say we just refer to ALL groups as
"jackass", because I think really we all deserve it :)
the world: "Uhh, what's the big deal?" Personally, I think it's
positively bonkers to worry about kids being scarred by seeing
something they themselves used to suck on, but whatever.
Actually kids are more scarred by being told that such things are taboo.
Being relaxed about the human body of others is a good path to feeling
good about your own body.
Yea, but according to some, we're supposed to feel ashamed of our bodies. ;)
(Again, just about all american I've met has expressed that they have no
problems with nudity themselves, and I believe them.
Heh, There was one time I was in the locker room for some swimming pool,
and an elderly gent was right in the middle of changing. He was in no
hurry to finish, either. There were similar situations with my first
college roommate too, an [american-]football player who wasn't exactly
shy before/after showering. I actually found both of those cases
slightly disturbing and the mental images still haunt me ;)
But that said, I still find both examples as completely insufficient
justification for bans on nudity. Fact of the matter is, I like to use
both as shining examples of "Just because you don't want to see
something doesn't mean it should be banned".
> But I've been told
that I cannot go swimming in my boxer shorts that look like swimming
trunks because they are underwear and I could get into trouble over
that… i.e. someone MIGHT be offended. Which is kinds of odd, cause in my
own country I can go swimming naked and basically nobody would be
offended, if spotted they might be amused, but not offended.)
Yea, I find your stance on that much more sensible. I guess one could
make an argument about questions of sanitation, but in a pool, if
someone isn't clean I'm not sure swimming apparel is really going to
make a huge difference.
Admittedly, certain parts of the US are moving around to a more
european-like attitude, albiet slowly (Particularly on the west coast
which has always been known for being the most liberal part of the
country.) I've heard of a court case (IANAL, of course) in San Fransisco
where non-disruptive, non-sexualized public nudity was ruled legal. And
it's either there or maybe Portland that has an annual non-clothed
bicycling event. And I've heard that some court case in New York City
ruled non-disruptive toplessness legal. Something similar in Canada too,
IIRC. It's still nothing like certain other parts of the world, but
still, baby steps.
'Course, that said, there's other matters I care much more about. After
all, I'm in Cleveland, even if it were permitted here (I'm not aware of
it being allowed), it'd be too damn cold half the time anyway ;)
