IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: IESG Statement On Oppressive or Exclusionary Language

Masataka Ohta <mohta@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp> Fri, 24 July 2020 09:11 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 A2B163A0C92 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 24 Jul 2020 02:11:23 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.033
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.033 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, MISSING_HEADERS=1.021, 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, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 BDamWvlTNuFi for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 24 Jul 2020 02:11:20 -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 E4ECD3A0C8F for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 24 Jul 2020 02:11:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 3484 invoked from network); 24 Jul 2020 08:53:38 -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; 24 Jul 2020 08:53:38 -0000
Subject: Re: IESG Statement On Oppressive or Exclusionary Language
Cc: IETF Best Practices <ietf@ietf.org>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
References: <933ce8b4-78a5-76bf-55c3-7c5694faffbb@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp> <267BCA35-3A3F-440B-9F5F-2C818D5AE71A@icloud.com> <e7956fd8-2639-3df6-9539-0dd483cafa25@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp> <34CF64D6-10F3-4F45-B592-FA14C911DB0B@chopps.org>
From: Masataka Ohta <mohta@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp>
Message-ID: <c18fc227-7da0-1487-a2ae-74de1ac73759@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp>
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2020 18:11:37 +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: <34CF64D6-10F3-4F45-B592-FA14C911DB0B@chopps.org>
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/jYhsYa2VYvmbuTQQhPsuLsyg--M>
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: Fri, 24 Jul 2020 09:11:24 -0000

Christian Hopps wrote:

> The document actually talks to these points with some references.

I'm saying the document and the references are all too
much US centric ignoring both the original and established
meaning of "slave".

As

	https://www.etymonline.com/word/slave

	originally "Slav"

	Grose's dictionary (1785) has under Negroe "A
	black-a-moor; figuratively used for a slave,"
	without regard to race.

it should be OK to stop using "Negroe", but not "slave",
which are originally for Slav, whites.

					Masataka Ohta

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email