The doctrine that there is no absolute truth is usually called
"relativism". Bloom estimated that over 90% of incoming freshman at America's best colleges subscribed to this doctrine. So it's an important issue to consider at Wikipedia.
Really? Did he give figures on how many had thought better of it by
the end of the 'best colleges'? Does this tell one much about anything, except that teenagers might still have a little to learn? (Design of questionnaire to test this: 'Is relativism correct? Answer (a) Yes (b) No (c) Whatever.)
LOL. His "Closing of the American Mind" didn't provide statistics.
It was almost entirely a plea that relativism should not take over the academy, lest openness be used as a dodge to fetter us all. Then the poor bloke died. :-(
Anyway, the PC article could use a little work. It needs a balance between liberal and conservative views of PC-ness. Liberals mostly deny that PC even exists, so it might be tricky. I guess the best strategy is to quote conservatives a lot, then wait for other contributors to provide the liberal rebuttal. But I don't relish wading into that swamp.
Ed
On Thu, 12 Feb 2004, Poor, Edmund W wrote:
The doctrine that there is no absolute truth is usually called
"relativism". Bloom estimated that over 90% of incoming freshman at America's best colleges subscribed to this doctrine. So it's an important issue to consider at Wikipedia.
Really? Did he give figures on how many had thought better of it by
the end of the 'best colleges'? Does this tell one much about anything, except that teenagers might still have a little to learn? (Design of questionnaire to test this: 'Is relativism correct? Answer (a) Yes (b) No (c) Whatever.)
LOL. His "Closing of the American Mind" didn't provide statistics.
I am reminded of Sidney Hook's review of Bloom's book -- enough to spend half an hour thumbing thru my run of issues of _American Scholar_ to find it (Winter, 1989, pp. 123-35). While the point I thought me made wasn't there, still I found a passage that I believe illustrates the gap in views between Sascha & Ed:
"It may hard to believe, but Bloom's whole discussion of the theme [moral or cultural relativism] is vitiated by a fundamental blunder. He confuses subjectivism with moral relativity. He seems unaware of the difference between saying (1) all truth is relative, meaning nothing is true or false, good or bad, but that our saying so or feeling so makes it so, and saying (2) all truth is relational, depending on a complex of things that determine its validity or objectivity."
Hook then proceeds to explain this difference, noting that Abraham Lincoln, whom Bloom held as an example of a truly moral statesman was actually pragmatic in his application of morality (read the "Emancipation Proclamation" with attention to the locales it is intended to apply); and persuasively defends Oliver Wendell Holmes from Bloom's charge of contributing to this concept of "moral relativism".
Re-reading Hook's review for the first time in about 10 years, I find much that is useful in considering the theme of NPOV.
I suspect Sascha's point of view is closer to Hook's #2.
It was almost entirely a plea that relativism should not take over the academy, lest openness be used as a dodge to fetter us all. Then the poor bloke died. :-(
Anyway, the PC article could use a little work. It needs a balance between liberal and conservative views of PC-ness. Liberals mostly deny that PC even exists, so it might be tricky. I guess the best strategy is to quote conservatives a lot, then wait for other contributors to provide the liberal rebuttal. But I don't relish wading into that swamp.
At the risk of stirring the pot, I find the whole argument about PC-speak is nothing more than a rehash of Orwell's essay "Politics and the English Language" -- only the conservative POV is to claim that they don't engage in the same manipulation of language that the other side does. (One example would be how Ann Coultier uses titles like "Treason" for her books about her accusations of left-of-center politicians; there's no better way to win an argument than to distract your opponent with defending her/his reputation.)
Geoff
On 02/12/04 17:33, Poor, Edmund W wrote:
Anyway, the PC article could use a little work. It needs a balance between liberal and conservative views of PC-ness. Liberals mostly deny that PC even exists, so it might be tricky. I guess the best strategy is to quote conservatives a lot, then wait for other contributors to provide the liberal rebuttal. But I don't relish wading into that swamp.
And US and non-US views. Are you sure you've picked the right dichotomy?
(Speaking as a wet lefty Economist^WGuardian-reading It's Grim Up North London social democrat, I remember when the term was invented, and don't understand this assertion that "Liberals mostly deny that PC even exists," since if it's false in my existence you must be deluded. Perhaps it's the case in some weirdarse country I have never been to.)
- d.
On 02/12/04 at 12:33 PM, "Poor, Edmund W" Edmund.W.Poor@abc.com said:
Liberals mostly deny that PC even exists, so it might be tricky
Whoa, let's get a few things straight. "Political correctness" evolved in the 1960s among progressive-minded people who sought culturally more sensitive labels for people, ie "Afro-Americans" instead of "negroes", "Native Americans" instead of "Indians", "disabled" instead of "crippled" or "handicapped", and a bunch more.
No sensible person can argue that this a bad idea. In civilized circles, this thought of as PROGRESS.
Now in the 1980s and 90s, when the Left splintered into identity politics, US conservatives complained "political correctness" went too far; they claimed that leftists had become obsessed with creating euphemisms for avoiding uncomfortable realities. Maybe conservatives have/had a point, maybe not. Whether or not you agree with "political correctness" is up to you. However, if you don't, it implies you would prefer to refer to Blacks as "negroes" or "colored people" again.
V.
if you don't, it implies you would prefer to refer to Blacks as "negroes" or "colored people" again.
Only a deluded person would prefer the horrifically evil phrase "colored people" to the beatifically enlightened "people of color." Oh! Excuse me, I meant "person of delusions."
Sean Barrett wrote:
if you don't, it implies you would prefer to refer to Blacks as "negroes" or "colored people" again.
Only a deluded person would prefer the horrifically evil phrase "colored people" to the beatifically enlightened "people of color." Oh! Excuse me, I meant "person of delusions."
Of course "colored people" had a different meaning in the U.S. and in apartheid South Africa. The term "people of color" tends to be used of practically anybody that is not of waspish hue.
Ec
Ray Saintonge wrote:
Sean Barrett wrote:
if you don't, it implies you would prefer to refer to Blacks as "negroes" or "colored people" again.
Only a deluded person would prefer the horrifically evil phrase "colored people" to the beatifically enlightened "people of color." Oh! Excuse me, I meant "person of delusions."
Of course "colored people" had a different meaning in the U.S. and in apartheid South Africa. The term "people of color" tends to be used of practically anybody that is not of waspish hue.
Ec
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
It's not used in the UK. We use "black". People are officially described as Black Caribbean or Black African. (or Black British).
HTH Secretlondon
Caroline Ford wrote:
It's not used in the UK. We use "black". People are officially described as Black Caribbean or Black African. (or Black British).
The official term in the US is "black and/or African-American", at least according to the census.
There seems to be disagreement in the black community over which term to use. Supporters of "African-American" argue that term is better because it puts more emphasis on the culture rather than just the skin color, while supporters of "black" argue that "African-American" implies that blacks are not real Americans and really are properly considered "Africans", even if they've lived here for hundreds of years. There's a number of other arguments on both sides. I'd say the term "black" is used more often these days, though "African-American" was more common 10 years ago.
There's also the occasional use of other terms, mostly due to historical reasons. For example, the biggest advocacy organization is the NAACP, the "National Association for the Advancement of Colored People", though the term "colored people" is not itself used anymore.
Just FYI. =]
-Mark
use. Supporters of "African-American" argue that term is better because it puts more emphasis on the culture rather than just the skin color,
Except that neither of my friends who were born in Africa and are now naturalized citizens of the United States (America) can call themselves African-American. You see, one was born in Cairo and the other in Johannesburg. "African-American" most emphatically does not mean "American from Africa" -- it is nothing more nor less than a seven-syllable synonym for "Negro," "black," and "descendant of natives of central Africa."
Sean Barrett wrote:
use. Supporters of "African-American" argue that term is better because it puts more emphasis on the culture rather than just the skin color,
Except that neither of my friends who were born in Africa and are now naturalized citizens of the United States (America) can call themselves African-American. You see, one was born in Cairo and the other in Johannesburg. "African-American" most emphatically does not mean "American from Africa" -- it is nothing more nor less than a seven-syllable synonym for "Negro," "black," and "descendant of natives of central Africa."
It also really irritates people that most would call black, but aren't of African descent, as well. (many Indonesians and those in neighboring areas fall into this category.)
-- Jake
Sean Barrett wrote
.> "African-American" most emphatically does not
mean "American from Africa" -- it is nothing more nor less than a seven-syllable synonym for "Negro," "black," and "descendant of natives of central Africa."
An Irish-American, self-identified, may never have left Boston MA. Your point?
Charles
On Thu, 12 Feb 2004, Sean Barrett wrote:
use. Supporters of "African-American" argue that term is better because it puts more emphasis on the culture rather than just the skin color,
Except that neither of my friends who were born in Africa and are now naturalized citizens of the United States (America) can call themselves African-American. You see, one was born in Cairo and the other in Johannesburg. "African-American" most emphatically does not mean "American from Africa" -- it is nothing more nor less than a seven-syllable synonym for "Negro," "black," and "descendant of natives of central Africa."
Ethnic labels are never tidy.
There is the issue of "Black Cherokees", the descendents of the slaves owned by Cherokee Indians. They consider themselves Indians, due to arguments of culture; the Cheorkees consider them African-Americans due to their racial ancestory. From what I've read, there is an issue of money involved.
But then money is also at the root of the disagreement over whether the Chinook Indians are extinct or still have descendants alive in Southwestern Washington State. The BIA is disinclined to recognize Native American groups that it has declared gone.
Finally, racial origins make the Lumleys of North Carolina remarkable: AFAIK, they are the only group in the US who are the descendants of African-American, Native-American & European-American origins. I wonder if Wikipedia has an article about them, or at least a mention under [[Lumberton, North Carolina]].
Geoff