RE: [Offlist] IESG Statement On Oppressive or Exclusionary Language

["STARK, BARBARA H" <[e-mail]>]

The sort of “language policing” you describe is where the people in power prevented people not in power from expressing their views and opinions. It is not about the people in power policing their own language so as not to (intentionally?) oppress people not in power. The powerful regimes you reference were very effective at selecting words to maximize oppression – and they knew it.

IETF is powerful. The people who are able to get RFCs published are powerful. The suggestion being made in this thread is that the IETF proceed in a way to minimize oppression of marginalized communities that IETF’s words might cause. I don’t think outright bans are useful. I do think it’s a good idea to ask authors to make conscious decision to use words that we know communities of  marginalized people say harms them.

Language matters, as the debate over such things as Texas schoolbooks * shows us. It can be as insidious as the order in which things are presented, omission of select information, and use of passive vs. active tense (so no-one and nothing gets “blamed”). All over the world, women and societies are brainwashed by people in control of broadcast and print media that having dark skin is unattractive. I’ve seen reports about this from India, Ghana, South Africa, Japan, Korea, the United States, and elsewhere. They are sold skin bleaching products that cause cancer, kidney damage, fetal damage, etc. The message that “dark” is evil/bad/ugly/stupid has real consequences.

I think it’s past time that people who have the influence and prestige of IETF standing behind their published words were asked to at least be aware of any words they use that might be causing harm to marginalized populations around the world.

Barbara

* https://www.npr.org/sections/ed/2015/07/13/421744763/how-textbooks-can-teach-different-versions-of-history (and you can find many other articles if you search for “Texas State Board of Education history”

From: ietf <[e-mail]> On Behalf Of Carlos M. Martinez
Sent: Wednesday, July 29, 2020 1:42 PM
To: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [Offlist] IESG Statement On Oppressive or Exclusionary Language


Hi all

On 24 Jul 2020, at 20:11, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:

And we also know that language policing can be an oppressive and
exclusionary tool, and a great deal of caution and discretion is
required to avoid that outcome.

I fully agree.

http://paulgraham.com/orth.html<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__paulgraham.com_orth.html&d=DwMFaQ&c=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=LoGzhC-8sc8SY8Tq4vrfog&m=5y-_0C2d770v07iq5xllNPU2mkVazNxHlsEAAlHx2cs&s=IQPYiadfx2TZyc0TVa3Fhl2fIRp6nrXiIEbhBMSoeFs&e=>

A sobering read.

Language control has been for ages a preferred tool for societal/thought control. Just go over a bit of history and make a list of different organizations that tried to control language.

Without even googling:

  *   The Catholic Church during the Middle Ages
  *   Every fascist government in the first half of the 20th century
  *   Every military dictatorship during most of the 20th century
  *   Quite a few regimes currently in power. No need to name them, they are known to all

Language control creates a very powerful control tool that if it were to fall on the wrong hands. Even things created with the best intentions can do incredible harm if suddenly the wrong set of people are in charge.

As someone who grew up in a military dictatorship I have first hand experience on this. An uncle of mine spent a week in jail in 1974 just for uttering the word “communist” on the street. A word that had been banned.

The IETF has a lot of work to do in order to ensure an inclusive, open minded and welcoming environment, one that will lead to more and better technology being developed within its framework. Language control is not something that will help, and could be dangerous in the future.

/Carlos