Klarinet Archive - Posting 000196.txt from 2000/10

From: Gary Truesdail <gir@-----.net>
Subj: Re: [kl] Language - A Viewpoint
Date: Wed, 4 Oct 2000 02:56:57 -0400

Hang in there Michael

Cultural differences? The spice of life.
Into every life a storm will come only to be followed by a silver cloud.

We all need occasional reminders of that which wars are made in order to have
the strength to stand back a moment with our mouths shut and our minds open in
order to see and understand the world and people around us. However, when
personally attacked, put up your dukes, in the spirit of good hearted combat,
and may all come out the stronger. We all need to stand up tall and speak our 2
cents worth otherwise we are allowing the loudest bellower to rule by default.
Stay in game regardless, for we are all in the same boat, traveling down the
same river towards the same end.

Stand by, and through keen observation you may learn the truth or fallacy behind
the meaning of tolerance. If you find out, I for one would appreciate your
enlightenment.

GaryT

redcedar wrote:

> It has been my misfortune to be chastised twice in recent weeks for alleged
> inappropriate use of language on two different Internet lists.
>
> On the first occasion, on a literary list, I was unclear in an explanation
> on some matter, and sought to clarify my explanation with a follow-up post.
> Feeling chagrined at having goofed the first time, I appended my
> clarification with the (I need help) phrase - "Perhaps I should go and have
> a strong long black." Never in my wildest dreams did I imagine that this
> would be interpreted as a racist slur, but it was. I subsequently pointed
> out that I had used this term for over 40 years as common usage in this
> country, and indeed in any coffee-lounge/restaurant throughout Australia,
> the menu will typically include an entry under "Beverages" - "long black",
> as well as "flat white" and so on. My usage was idiomatic, and never
> intended as an offensive statement.
>
> Fast forward to "Klarinet". I have been chastised in recent days for
> "uttering" the words "shut up". Again, this is so colloquial in this
> country, if not idiomatic usage, that few, in my experience, would have
> taken offence. I did a little straw poll of a linguistics scholar, a
> minister of religion, and a lawyer, to test my understanding, and on each
> occasion was greeted with a variant of "Uh! - what are you on about?" I do
> accept however, that context may sometimes be a mitigating factor, and on
> some occasions these words might be also accompanied by a inward sigh, a
> rolling of the eyes, or an exasperated groan, or whatever, which might of
> course aid the interpretation.
>
> These are only two examples of many, but will suffice to highlight my point.
>
> We are often challenged in the posts on this list by language which seems
> inappropriate in context, or frankly confrontational. When one of our
> Continental European or South American posters occasionally mis-express
> themselves in English with sometimes offensive consequences, I don't recall
> that we leap on the "offender" and tear him/her apart. Yet, when those with
> English as their first language appear to offend, we often don't offer any
> recourse, but invariably take offence as the first line of defence, and beat
> him up. There is usually little evidence of a "standing-back" and
> contemplating whether we have misunderstood the "foreign" idea, or the
> writer's intent, or the idiomatic use of language.
>
> Accompanying the growing prevalence of email traffic there has been an
> emergent use of smiley faces to soften or alter the words used.
> Regrettably, I'm yet to come across a suitable "groan" symbol, or a "rolling
> of the eyes" image, although I note that one poster regularly uses stage
> instructions to qualify his language, whilst another resorts to a feline
> character to say the "unsayable". But when is one to know when such devices
> are required? I suspect the answer is, that often we don't know, for we are
> invariably confronting aspects of cultural difference. It is my view that
> some - only some - of what transpired and inflamed in the recent debate on
> list between various parties was a direct consequence of misinterpretation
> of culturally idiosyncratic behaviours and language. Interestingly, for
> centuries, before the computer age, we've written one another letters
> without resort to the graphic modifiers, although no doubt there is a
> lurking historian who may point to some letter's misunderstood language
> which sparked a war, or three. But I digress.
>
> It is an indisputable fact that "klarinet" is predominated by American
> contributors. For someone in the relative physical isolation of this side
> of the globe, "klarinet" offers access to fascinating insights, different
> experiences, new information, many of which are uniquely American, or
> uniquely English, or Dutch, or Italian, or whatever. These are valuable.
> Naturally enough, given the composition of the list, American
> pre-occupations tend to gain more air-time than others. This is not
> typically a problem, notwithstanding the marching band phenomenon. But I
> sometimes get the very strong feeling that for some American contributors,
> there is only one way to view the world, one possible interpretation, etc -
> the American way. This perception may go some way to answering the not so
> rhetorical question recently asked by someone - why not more English
> contributors? or perhaps this could be widened, to why not more Australian
> contributors? and so on.
>
> I recently published an article in a local journal, which contained amongst
> other things, a favourable outline of "klarinet" and "sneezy" as resources
> for clarinettists. It never occurred to me to take the precaution of
> including a caveat, forewarning possible adventurers on the list, of the
> problems which might arise from the Amero-centricity of the list. In my
> opinion, that wasn't, and should not be necessary, if one assumes - as I had
> - a tolerance to other's viewpoints, modes of expression, and the like.
>
> And that is the end-point of this longish note. Tolerance. Why can't we
> exercise a little more tolerance of the views of others, and initially
> concede that an element of cultural difference may be present in our
> communications? If it is subsequently demonstrated that cultural difference
> is an inadequate explanation, then by all means take the contributor to
> task. But not as the first line of approach.
>
> Yesterday, after a couple of years on list, I decided to unsubscribe from
> "klarinet", and when I did, received an error message. I then asked Mark
> Charette to do the task for me. He responded in part - "Don't be silly...".
> Should I now take offence - throw my teddy bear - or abuse him in turn? Of
> course not, though, I may still choose to ignore his advice.
>
> Michael O'Neile
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> Unsubscribe from Klarinet, e-mail: klarinet-unsubscribe@-----.org
> Subscribe to the Digest: klarinet-digest-subscribe@-----.org
> Additional commands: klarinet-help@-----.org
> Other problems: klarinet-owner@-----.org

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Unsubscribe from Klarinet, e-mail: klarinet-unsubscribe@-----.org
Subscribe to the Digest: klarinet-digest-subscribe@-----.org
Additional commands: klarinet-help@-----.org
Other problems: klarinet-owner@-----.org