IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: USA dominion: Re: IESG Statement On Oppressive or Exclusionary Language

Masataka Ohta <mohta@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp> Sun, 26 July 2020 12:57 UTC

Return-Path: <mohta@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 42D033A0E5D for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 26 Jul 2020 05:57:09 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.989
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.989 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_BL=0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_L3=0.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ZTPQtk8WE_9B for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 26 Jul 2020 05:57:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp (necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp [131.112.32.132]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 786203A0E83 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sun, 26 Jul 2020 05:56:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 36824 invoked from network); 26 Jul 2020 12:39:15 -0000
Received: from necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp (HELO ?127.0.0.1?) (131.112.32.132) by necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp with SMTP; 26 Jul 2020 12:39:15 -0000
Subject: Re: USA dominion: Re: IESG Statement On Oppressive or Exclusionary Language
To: ietf@ietf.org
References: <35BE966B-63A2-438F-BD61-570E86ED2E1A@strayalpha.com> <297BF899-553D-44DB-AB56-04280F776F7A@employees.org> <6646575A-E6EA-4B4E-AC1B-F8B84B5A1203@strayalpha.com> <20200724225654.GB43465@faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> <6.2.5.6.2.20200725130205.0bc4e420@elandnews.com>
From: Masataka Ohta <mohta@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp>
Message-ID: <9bc160ec-a038-b90a-4b93-0b668f9137c1@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp>
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 2020 21:57:20 +0900
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.10.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <6.2.5.6.2.20200725130205.0bc4e420@elandnews.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-2022-jp"; format="flowed"; delsp="yes"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/IBJEBnTVav8NqtwH-1F2t2S3wxc>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 26 Jul 2020 12:57:09 -0000

S Moonesamy wrote:

> The main part of Toerless' message is about whether the U.S. social 
> issues which have influenced the debate about some words.

A problem is that, even with US local wordings, "slave" does not
specifically mean black slaves unless otherwise mentioned from
the context, which should be the reason why US people, long
after the era of slavery of blacks, coined and accepted the
terminologies with "master/slave".

So, I think it's just temporal instability in US to be better
ignored.

						Masataka Ohta

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email