I feel deeply offended, Milos, on behalf of JAC by your
accusations of institutional racism.
I have followed your suggestion
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."If you want to understand what I am talking about, please start with this article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institutional_racism
On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 8:42 PM, Michael Everson <everson@evertype.com> wrote:On 17 May 2017, at 17:13, Milos Rancic <millosh@gmail.com> 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 Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom --- This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. http://www.avg.com