From: dwayne (dwayne@pobox.com)
Date: Sat Jun 05 1999 - 00:11:12 MDT
"Michael S. Lorrey" wrote:
>
> > Sorry, last time I checked, Italians were caucasian.
>
> Only in a general sense. Most bigoted types who are northern european descendants do not
> beleive so, especially italians of sicilian descent, who are considered by bigots of
> northern extraction to be not much different from blacks. If I were as knee jerk and
> over-sensitive as you I'd consider your ignorance of this fact to be rather bigoted of you.
Aha, as opposed to actually being based in fact.
I'm sure OTHER white people might make derogatory comments about
southern italians being black, but I think most black people would class
them as caucasian.
>
> > Oh get a grip, will you? Who is talking about WASPS? As I said to you,
> > if you were to use such a word to a group of aborigines over here, they
> > will be offended. The fact that you are *italian* will not calm them
> > down much at all. All they will see is yet another offensive white dude
> > having a go at them. Shit, that's all I see reading this email.
>
> Which is, as I said, total knee jerking and being totally ignorant of other historical
> contexts.
What a cop-out. Stick to the matter at hand.
> > This is SUCH complete bullshit. The Scots weren't locked up in chains
> > and carted off to the other side of the planet. To even attempt to
> > compare what happened to the scots to what happened to negroes is so
> > obviously fatuous as to render me, um, speechless.
>
> On the contrary, my scottish ancestors were locked up and carted off to the Hebrides and to
> Nova Scotia, and their land was seized so that English lords could make more profits off of
> the breeding of sheep. All commoner women were subject to the English policy of
> Primogeniture, which meant that the king, the local lord, or his agent had the right to
> have intercourse with any newly married woman before the husband could consummate the
> marriage. This was the enactment of old Longshanks' complaint that "The problem with
> Scotland is that its full of Scots."
>
> I think this is an ample example of how little you understand history.
No, I was entirely aware of this, O Sage, but I still don't think it
ranks with the treatment afforded africans over the last 400 years.
> > Can I just quickly interject into the midst of this foam and ask you:
> > what the hell has this to do with you not calling aborigines "abos"?
>
> I could counter by saying that what does my use of the term, even though I've never been
> anywhere near Austrialia or known an Aborigine, have anything to do with how pissed the
> Aborigines may be at the way Aussies have treated them?
You tried to justify your use of the word because of the history of
family oppression you have suffered. I countered that once you know a
word is offensive to someone, you really should be nice and not use it
again. the justification continues. I honestly cannot for the life of
me work out how you can justify *your* use of an offensive term based on
what happened to your ancestors. There are honest mistakes (you're an
american, how are you to know the word is offensive until you have been
told it is?), but why continue to labour the point once you have been
told the word is offensive?
> > Without getting too far into personal flames, you are a fucking twit.
>
> Since this isn't the first time you've descended to personal flames, insults, and general
> bad language, you're already a bit far into it.
Yah, I've already been warned about the use of certain proscribed words
here. So I'll make an effort to clothe my insults in nice language, as
everyone else does. But you get my point.
> > Where did I say you should feel responsible for ANYTHING other than your
> > own actions? Why did this come into it? I mentioned that the word "abo"
> > is considered rude here. You come back, as usual, with something
> > totally unrelated to what I wrote. Are you incapable of addressing the
> > issues people raise with you, too stupid to understand the difference,
> > or too devious to care?
>
> I addressed the topic, and you still felt like coming back with a rude threat as to how
> some Queensland natives would treat me. The only one being rude here is you.
You addressed the topic by trying to point out how you were justified in
using the word. Any decent person would say "sorry, didn't realise,
won't say it again" but you continue to trot out claims to support your
right to be ruder to people.
> > Do you have any idea how many people killfile you, Michael? Is it a
> > lot? You are the only person on this list I have considered doing it to,
> > and one of the rare people on the net to bring me to such a conclusion.
> > Congratulations.
>
> The only people who may killfile me are people I probably wouldn't care to converse with
> much anyways, or are people who are just to busy to deal with the obnoxious individuals I
> take it upon myself to deal with.
Wow, selfless effort in pursuit of the common good, eh?
> > I haven't done so as yet because you *appear* to have a brain, but this
> > complete inability to stick to the point is too annoying for words.
>
> At this point, I'm wondering what YOUR point is. You seem to have lost it.
I've made it enough times. Unlike you, I can stick to the point. You
have probably been reading my words desperately waiting for me to veer
wildly off the track so you can follow the conversation. I try to avoid
doing that.
Dwayne
--
mailto:ddraig@pobox.com http://i.am/dwayne
"the cricher we kno as dwayne is only the projection
into our dimension of something much larger and
wirder."
---clae@pa.ausom.net.au
....return....to....the....source....
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:03:59 MST