On Wednesday, 19 March 2014 at 07:51:06 UTC, Nick Sabalausky
wrote:
I find that interesting. This is the first I've ever heard of
"caucasian" being even potentially offensive.
Well, I am not offended by the term, I dislike it. I am offended
by having to provide racial information. I am not sure what other
norwegians feel about that, though. After 2WW where we lost over
1/3 of our jewish population (which was small already, jews were
barred from entry until 1851) laws were established that banned
registration of race, sexuality etc (unless where it has a very
clear function of necessity). So my main objection is to having
race and sexuality registered.
But there is a bias in terms like "nordic" to race, even though
it formally isn't a racial expression. And when we talk about
north Europe, east Europe, southern Europe we refer to culture,
but there is also a bias towards genetic traits if the context is
about what people look like. Like, "americans" is more likely to
evoke stereotypical images of middle class white americans than
multi cultural america or the native americans.
I think talking about "white norwegians", or "white swedes" is
somewhat weird and makes me a bit uneasy, either because it is
too close or because the labels "norwegian" and "swede" already
have a white bias, so making it explicit makes it overly racial?
But talking about "white americans", "the whites in Africa" etc
is no problem at all and is politically correct. Perhaps because
the usual context for those expressions is to talk about unfair
treatment of minorities and lack of distribution of wealth.
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.
And this technical focus is what I object to since the nazis did
take a rather "scientific" approach to this by measuring skulls
etc to identify "pure genes".
Besides, how many third generation non-white american in the US
have an actual ethnicity that makes sense? Like 1/4 african, 1/8
german, etc…
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".
:-) Well, we are all coloured by the taboos that we were taught
as kids. Getting over those is a challenge. I would personally
not be offended by any cussing in a foreign language, I think.
Though there probably are some vulgar cussing in norwegian that
I'd rather not be affiliated with.
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.
In the 80s the feminist movement made a big point of top less sun
bathing, so you would find it everywhere (also in parks
sometimes). But then it became less common outside beaches. Not
sure why, probably partially because of breast cancer news
reports and a lack of interest after the point had been made? I
think it is difficult to uphold in cold region where you have to
wear lots of cloths most of the year. I think it sends signals of
being self-indulgent if you do it "in your face" in a park these
days, but if you find your own spot then it is no problem.
Of course, the population density of my country is low and the
water front is accessible to the public even on private land (by
law), so if you want to be nude you can always find your own spot
somewhere.
