Harry, I do appreciate your getting back to me about this, but I guess I have lost interest in carrying on the discussion at this point.
Selma ----- Original Message ----- From: "Harry Pollard" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Selma Singer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, March 29, 2003 3:33 PM Subject: Re: [Futurework] An apology requested ( was: Perle's body language) > Selma, > > 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 > _______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://scribe.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
