Subject: Re: moorish temple
From: John Anderson <panic-AT-semiosix.com>
Date: 19 Oct 2002 22:22:42 +0200


On Sat, 2002-10-19 at 19:22, Maldoror wrote:
> you're missing the point entirely. arabs, in talking
> to the better half who is arab, (who grew up in an
> arab country, who would have as much experience being
> called a moor by outsiders as a black would have being
> called a nigger by outsiders), equate moor as being
> equivalent to nigger, especially considering how it
> came about and the context that the term was born
> into.

http://65.39.144.73/

This is the homepage of a certain Mas'ud Ahmed Khan. "Moorish" is used
in a non-derogatory sense. Go figure. (That was an idiom)

Oh, and you're still conflating Moor with Moorish, and you're still
ignoring context while at the same time using the word. Are you planning
to run for president of the US next?

> btw: i've read 'the moor's last sight' and if you
> don't see the irony in his use of the term then you've
> plainly missed the point. what he does with the
> character is akin to blacks calling themselves niggas
> in their music in an attempt to undermine the meaning
> of the slur.

No shit? I would never have guessed if you hadn't told me. (That was
mild sarcasm).

> > And canadians get annoyed when you ask them if
> > they're american. And if
> > you told a greek mama that she made wonderful
> > turkish food, she'd be
> > annoyed. So following your argument, the terms
> > "american" and "turkish"
> > are racist? 
> 
> american is not a derogatory term. moor/moorish is.
> turkish is not a derogatory term, moor/moorish is.

In mathematics, there's a technique called reductio ad absurdum. I'm
sure Goat can give us a direct translation if he's inclined (he's never
really straight, but that's another story), but esssentially it means
taking a premise, following it to an obviously nonsensical conclusion,
and thereby showing that the premise is incorrect.

Analogously (because language is not as rigorous as mathematics), I took
your line of reasoning with a slighly different example and showed it to
result in a nonsensical conclusion. Thereby showing that your line of
reasoning is incorrect. (That was making a point with a sledgehammer).

> think of moor as the arab equivalent of nigger for
> blacks, kike for jews, spick for latin americans, gook
> for vietnamese, chink for chinese, nip for japanese,
> kraut for germans, whop/daygo for italians, etc.

Really? There's an arabic word pronounced the same way as we pronounce
"moor"? And it's insulting? And here I was thinking the term came from a
latin word meaning "black". Or "dark" or something like that. (That was
feigned ignorance and studied vagueness, respectively)

> just because it survives in architecture books
> (written by non-arabs, which is very imporatant here)
> does not mean its any less of a degrading term.

You keep saying that, but so far you've failed to produce any evidence
apart from your SO, and given what I've seen so far, I'm not convinced
you understood him/her correctly.

> > I wouldn't accuse someone of being racist purely
> > because described a
> > black man as "a niggly sonofabitch".
> 
> that says a lot.

Brilliant rebuttal. Absolutely without compare. Your wit sparkles, nay,
shines. Scintillating in it's succinctness. Absolutely irrefutable, if I
may add. (That was Heavy Sarcasm)

> > The basic
> > difference is that
> > one is spelt M O O R, whereas the other has an I S H
> > on the end. It's
> > funny how in languages, differences in spelling
> > often denote differences
> > in meaning.
> 
> moorish arrives out of moor. the differences are
> nearly non existant as moorish denotes something
> having characteristics of a moor, just as niggerish
> would denote characteristics of the nigger, kike-ish
> the kike, nippish the nip, etc.

Oh dear. Oh dear. Oh dear. OK, I'll try. Semiotics is a now somewhat
outdated approach to the study of how words and their meanings are
related. Its central thesis is that there is no necessary connection
between a word and it's meaning. Now if you accept this thesis (which is
probably a Good Idea because lots of Very Smart People have made good
arguments supporting it) (that was an appeal to authority) you would
need to accept it's implication, which is that two similar words (even
where one is arrived^H^H^H^H^^Hderived from the other) may in the course
of time diverge completely in meaning. For example "gay" and "gaiety".
Of course words are going to do that whether or not a bunch of folks who
like to think of themselves as smart get together and invent big words
like semiotics. Because That's How Language Works. If it didn't, we'd be
able to read Chaucer without a translation dictionary.

> > And as for Michael
> > Moorcock, well shit, a dude
> > with a name like that can't possibly not be a
> > racist. 
> 
> you clearly miss the point here.

You've heard of irony?

> > And those Scottish
> > people who called certain geographical features
> > "Moors". 
> 
> and here.

... Apparently not.

> listen i'm not trying to be a dick here.

No offense, but for not trying, you're succeeding brilliantly. (That
was, unfortunately, a statement of fact. Which is nothing like a
statement of bank).

> i'm simply
> calling into question

bzzzzt. Thank you for playing, but making an assertion is entirely
different to calling something into question. (That was a gameshow).

> a term that is racist to a large
> number of people in the world the same as nigger is
> racist. just because it is used in seemingly benign
> areas like descriptions in architecture does not mean
> it's any more okay than calling something niggerish,
> it simply means that the racist term has been allowed
> to continue by the powers that be (ie the non-arab
> writers of those books)

Funny how if you did a google search, as has been suggested, you'd find
a bnuch of sites with arab authors (or at least with authors having arab
names) (that was a subtle difference) using the term "Moorish" and
"Moor". Now you may have a point in here somewhere, but it's seriously
obscured. I've already agreed with you that "Moor" _could_ be used in a
derogatory way, but I fail to see how it's derogatory to the same extent
that "nigger" or "kaffir" is regarded as derogatory. There's also the
fact that calling someone a Moor is a completely different kettle of
fish (that's another idiom, which is nothing like irony, except in that
they're both what are known as "figures of speech". (That was irony) )
to the usage of Moor as a noun, or Moorish as an adjective, a point
which you've yet to understand. But seeing as I'm a nice person I'll try
to explain (unlike Carp who would insult you for the sport, and I'm
starting to think it might be more interesting that way): it's similar
to the difference between calling someone a nigger (to his/her face) and
discussing the term "nigger" in an email like this one. But it's also
different because nigger is more widely accepted as a racist and
derogatory term. No, the previous two sentences constitute neither a
paradox nor a contradiction. (Those are also figures of speech, or maybe
terms describing forms of logic, I'm not sure).

And here's another idea to play with: ask your SO about the etymology of
"kaffir".

And please, please don't read "A treatise on nomadalogy" again until
you've understood at least the rudiments of language usage (that was a
bald assertion, which is utterly unlike a bewigged assertion, which in
turn has no relation whatsoever to a debugging assertion). You reading
that paper is insulting to the authors who are now dead so they don't
give a shit. (That was a nonsensical statement).

bye
John
(that was a .sig)