Sorry I'm so late getting back to you on this. I marked it to answer, but it was buried behind the Iraq postings.
What did you see at the end that was my point?
Now for your great 10 line sentence. Wow! I'll take it in bits.
You said:
SELMA: "I understand you to be saying that racist epithets have their place in our
conversations; that they can be used to provoke thought in a way that could
not be done otherwise;"
Not at all - I'm not sure where you got the idea. I used them on Jewish and black audiences to make a point. Specific instances rather than during conversations.
You said:
SELMA: "that those of us who object to the stereotypes (whether based on factual evidence or not; stereotypes can never be accurate because the characteristics of the group never apply completely to any one individual) are overreacting to a way of speaking that is generally harmless"
No-one else but yourself can say whether you are over-reacting or under-reacting.
Classifying into groups is a very useful shorthand. It an important aid to thinking. Yet, it can also be a problem. The "shorthand" can take us in dangerous directions. Like all tools it can be used properly, or improperly. Rather as a hammer can split someone's head - or build a house.
You said:
"I think you are saying that it makes no sense at all to point out that these kinds
of speech can cause harm because that simply is not true."
If someone said to me: "The Jews are a bunch of creeps trying to take over the world" - I would probably ask why he thought that - and we would continue.
If I were an anti-Semite I would probably agree, listen to everything else he said, tucking it away to use with other potential anti-Semites.
My personal preference, which may not be yours, is to get such speech in the open. I think that the "gentlemens' agreement" situation is far more dangerous because it is hidden.
So, is speech harmful? It can certainly rally the troops - but I think prejudice in all its forms is deeper that. I don't think you can kill prejudice from outside. It can only be done by the person who holds it.
If we think we can stop prejudice by making it illegal, or punishing it, we are naive. The best that can be done is to send it underground where we don't know what it's doing. As I've indicated, I don't like that.
I wrote at the end of my post that of course Jews "conspire" and asked is that an anti-Semitic remark.
Well, if Jews are people, of course they conspire. Conspiracy can be found everywhere. Gentiles conspire, too. So, what else is new?
The real problem is demonstrated by my "Bill, the Austrian" example in an earlier post - that's the way I explain prejudice to the High School kids. As it happens this is part of the discussion of classification - which is not really stereotyping.
What I am really getting at can best be summed up by a Jewish joke. Incidentally, I love Jewish humor, which now seems to be casualty of political correctness. I suppose that Myron Cohen is gone. He was first-class, gentle, but getting on. Jackie Mason is not gentle but is still around, but I haven't heard him in ages. (When some Jews complained that he was "too Jewish", he was amused - as was I.)
Here's one I like. A gentile was cleaning himself up at a hotel washroom, when a Jew came in. "May I borrow your face-cloth?" he said. The gentile with a smile said "Sure" and handed it across.
"Do you mind me using your soap?" The gentile passed it to him.
"Would you mind giving me your toothbrush?"
The gentile demurred. "I'm sorry," he said. "But, I really can't let you use my toothbrush. It's just the way I feel"
"What's the matter with you?" said the Jew. "Are you anti-Semitic?"
It may not be Jewish - but it sounds like typical Jewish self-deprecating humor. (Oh, miGawd! That's stereotyping!)
Harry -------------------------------------------------- Selma wrote:
Harry,
I wasn't sure what the point of your post was until I saw it at the end. Please tell me if I am misinterpreting what you are trying to convey:
I understand you to be saying that racist epithets have their place in our conversations; that they can be used to provoke thought in a way that could not be done otherwise; that those of us who object to the stereotypes (whether based on factual evidence or not; stereotypes can never be accurate because the characteristics of the group never apply completely to any one individual) are overreacting to a way of speaking that is generally harmless and we should in no way try to keep people from any of these kinds of speech- I don't mean by legal or formal restrictions of any kind; I think you are saying that it makes no sense at all to point out that these kinds of speech can cause harm because that simply is not true.
Please correct me if I am misinterpreting what you posted, Harry.
Selma
****************************** Harry Pollard Henry George School of LA Box 655 Tujunga CA 91042 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tel: (818) 352-4141 Fax: (818) 353-2242 *******************************
--- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.463 / Virus Database: 262 - Release Date: 3/17/2003
