I feel deeply offended, Milos, on behalf of JAC by your accusations of
institutional racism.
I have followed your suggestion
If you want to understand what I am talking about, please start with
this article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institutional_racism
and actually read that article. From which it becomes clear to me that
JAC's actions and decisions are an appropriate and professional service
to minority groups and hence the opposite of institutional racism as
defined in the 1999 Lawrence report: "The collective failure of an
organisation to provide an appropriate and professional service to
people because of their colour, culture, or ethnic origin. It can be
seen or detected in processes, attitudes and behaviour which amount to
discrimination through unwitting prejudice, ignorance, thoughtlessness
and racist stereotyping which disadvantage minority ethnic people."
It is your accusations which are embarrassing, and I concur with the
other LangCom members in this discussion who have urged you to stop this!
Respectfully,
Oliver
On 17-May-17 21:05, Milos Rancic wrote:
On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 8:42 PM, Michael Everson <[email protected]> wrote:
On 17 May 2017, at 17:13, Milos Rancic <[email protected]> wrote:
Because SIL is at least sensible enough to have the policy to change derogatory
codes, while Congress Library is too white to be able to comprehend that.
You do not have any idea what you are talking about.
Obviously. However, at least they understand that there are offensive
language names [1]. Although, thanks for the information, they are
also too white, as well, to recognize that there is a need to change
the code if it's been based on offensive name.
Melanin helps to protect us from UV radiation and to permit the production of
Vitamin D.
I have explained to you MANY TIMES. Most of the ISO 639-2 codes were made many
years ago. No one was trying to insult anyone. No one was trying to push an
imperialist agenda. No one was looking at skin tone variation in Chile. They
were trying to tag data for libraries. Do you understand this?
I have explained to you MANY TIMES as well that reluctance to change codes on
the part of the JAC has to do with a concern for stability in encoding.
I ave informed you that I have spoken to the JAC, and I have supplied to you
their response. They looked at this 5 years ago and were not minded at that
time to destabilize encoding. They also said they would consider an application
if one were submitted.
You persist in arguing with ME about it and all I have done is explain facts to
you.
You are still embarrassing yourself. Nobody told here that there are
bad intentions. (Just to remind you, Cold War ended ~30 years ago :P )
I told you that you are perpetuating institutional racism [, filled
with absolutely good intentions].
If you want to understand what I am talking about, please start with
this article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institutional_racism
[1] http://archive.ethnologue.com/16/ethno_docs/introduction.asp
_______________________________________________
Langcom mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com
_______________________________________________
Langcom mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
