Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site decwrl.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!cbdkc1!desoto!packard!hoxna!houxm!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!tektronix!zehntel!dual!decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-lymph!arndt
From: arndt@lymph.DEC
Newsgroups: net.flame
Subject: \"Implicitly racist language\"
Message-ID: <2039@decwrl.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 6-May-85 16:59:15 EDT
Article-I.D.: decwrl.2039
Posted: Mon May  6 16:59:15 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 10-May-85 00:53:19 EDT
Sender: daemon@decwrl.UUCP
Organization: DEC Engineering Network
Lines: 28


Lucius Chiaraviglio refers to 'implicitly racist language which always 
associates black with evil and white with good.'

Better to get rid of associating 'black' or 'white' with race!  How about
'round eyes' and 'dog face' to use the old American Indian term for the
black troopers.  That way black can still be used for evil as it was in
ancient civilizations long before it came to mean anything to do with race
in some people's minds.

I always liked 'Chuck' and 'boon'.  Or how about . . . 

Just because language has several usages don't ban them all!  Why not prefer
the 'proper' use and eschew the improper?  But somehow I can't think of a
catchy slogan that would get that idea across to the masses.

What to do?  Evil is blue?  There are no blue people, at least that I've 
ever met.  Good is orange?  Say, I may have something here.

"Why that's very orange of you."

"You blue-hearted person, you."

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

Keep chargin'

Ken Arndt