NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/rec/humor/37308

Internet Message Format | 1993-01-03 | 4.0 KB

Xref: sparky rec.humor:37308 soc.religion.quaker:374 soc.culture.celtic:8515 soc.culture.jewish:24476
Path: sparky!uunet!newsflash.concordia.ca!clyde.concordia.ca!altitude!philmtl!ray
From: [e-mail] (Ray Dunn)
Newsgroups: rec.humor,soc.religion.quaker,soc.culture.celtic,soc.culture.jewish
Subject: Re: Seriously, a joke.
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 3 Jan 93 20:36:48 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Organization: Not Philips.
Lines: 68

In refd article, [e-mail] (Roadster Racewerks) writes:
 >I, too, find "offensive" a bit too strong...

There was a couple of things mildly offensive about the post.  The first is
the motive of the poster - he chose his newsgroups cross-post list with at
least an attempt to be controversial, if not deliberately offensive.

The second is the subject line.  Either the poster was trying to be clever
and actually imply that he was serious, or he was falling into the trap
that somehow you can be as offensive as you like so long as you protest
that you're really only trying to make a joke.  I've never understood that
concept, it's like smiling as you stick the knife in, and expecting the
recipient to be happy too.

I really do enjoy all sorts of offensive humour, but that doesn't stop it
being offensive to others.  It's usual to chose the forum to try to
minimize the offence, otherwise protestations of "joke" sound quite hollow.

 >Although we nowadays are taught to be more careful about stereotypes, they
 >do often have some foundation in fact if you go back far enough.

The implication here is that although we must be more careful about talking
about it, stereotyping (i.e.  generalisation) is justified by fact.  I
can't for a moment accept that if you believe that stereotypes were valid
in the _past_ that you don't believe they still are, even if the actual
stereotype is different.  Or do you subscribe to some magic transformation
that took place that suddenly makes all racial generalisations
inappropriate?

 >Scots had to be thrifty because they (Highlanders, at least) came from a
 >place where it could be very hard to make a living, and often had little
 >to share.  They were noted for their hospitality, but did *need* to drive
 >a hard bargain.

Nice theory, I suppose, but could apply to most people in most places.

There's no evidence that the Scots sterotype for stinginess is based on
anything other than it was cultivated by Scottish Victorian music-hall
artistes as part of an otherwise artificial personna.

 >Jews, during the Middle Ages (and later in many places) were usually quite
 >restricted in where they could go, how they could make a living inside their
 >ghettos, and even what they could own. (Which is why they often went into
 >easily-portable work like goldsmithing...) They, too, were forced to be very
 >careful with a penny.

Surely the Jewish stereotype comes from the business of money-lending and
banking being run mainly by Jews in past centuries (and not too uncommon
today).  _Not_ that the majority of Jews were in that business.  There is a
very different emphasis here from Suze's statement which implies that the
majority of Jews conformed to the stereotype, and thus justified it.

 >I don't see the harm in this joke, so long as people realize that the old
 >stereotypes are not very true in modern times, due to the increase in the
 >possibilities open to all these folk.

"Not _very_ true"?  But still a _little_ true perhaps?  So what _new_
stereotypes are true today Suze?  I really do find this statement quite
problematic (to say nothing of its patronising tone).

 >Now, if you were daft enough to *believe* the stereotypes..... :-(
 >But we aren't that stupid, are we?

I'm not really sure what to think Suze, seeing as how you went out of your
way to prove and justify those stereotypes, you do seem to believe them.
--
Ray Dunn at home        |  Beaconsfield, Quebec  |  Phone: [phone]
[e-mail]  |  [e-mail]           |  uunet!sobeco!philmtl!ray