########################################################################## # If Goanet stops reaching you, contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] # # Want to check the archives? http://www.goanet.org/pipermail/goanet/ # # Please keep your discussion/tone polite, to reflect respect to others # ##########################################################################
To Mario and Tim, I am sorry if there was some seeming lack of clarity in my post on the word 'negro'. I suspect that, like me, Goanet colleagues often read posts very rapidly because of their sheer numbers and don't always register what has been said. However, neither I nor any of my work colleagues (including our proof reader for academic texts) could see any ambiguity, whatsoever, in what I wrote. Thus, simply restated, but for greater clarification now, I had said that I favoured the word 'black' in the UK to describe non-white people inclusive of Asians. I also provided the reason for this. In a different context, i.e. North America (USA and Canada) I had stated "What I find more preferrable when in North America, is "visible minorities" rather than "people of colour" which I find abhorrent but is nevertheless widely used in the USA. Clearly, the contexts in the UK, USA and Canada are totally different and which require sensitivity to different terminological usages. I therefore did not lay claim to any one universal usage even though only a 'pond' separates us folks! I wonder if Aussie Goanetters have a view on the usage of the word 'negro' in Oz, and which was initially used tentatively on Goanet and began this discussion? Cornel
