From: topp8564-AT-mail.usyd.edu.au
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 13:25:41 +1100
Subject: Re: AUT: Re: Basque


On 27/2/2003 12:37 PM, "Ratibor Trivunac" <rata-AT-beotel.yu> wrote:

>> I also don't see how language is any more 'natural' or less usable for the
>> purposes of bigotry than 'blood' or 'race'.
> 
> You are joking, right?
> 
> Rata

Maybe I didn't phrase that right. But there are plenty of language bigots out 
there and the whole 'culture racism' thing is very serious. Demanding that 
migrants speak English is a key racist demand in Australia, England and the US. 
A lot of the stuff people are afraid to say about race they have no problems 
with language. But why? How is language any less arbitrary than eye colour? The 
obvious answer is that language invokes culture, history, etc...  So it is hard 
to be a language exclusivist and not get entangled in cultural exclusivism. 

In my honest opinion, 'blood' and 'race' are such obviously nazi concepts 
criticising them is a bit like pointing out the sky is blue. They are 
consequently much less dangerous than subtler forms of racism.

Thiago



-------------------------------------------------
This mail sent through IMP: www-mail.usyd.edu.au


     --- from list aut-op-sy-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---