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

[S Moonesamy <[e-mail]>]

Hello,
At 05:57 AM 26-07-2020, Masataka Ohta wrote:
>A problem is that, even with US local wordings, "slave" does not
>specifically mean [removed] slaves unless otherwise mentioned from
>the context, which should be the reason why US people, long
>after the era of slavery of [removed], coined and accepted the
>terminologies with "master/slave".
>
>So, I think it's just temporal instability in US to be better
>ignored.

RFC 1034 was written by Mr Mockapetris, ISI, and published in 
1987.  There isn't any occurrence of the word "slave" in that 
technical specification.  The word was introduced in technical 
specifications after that date.  I would not use the word in a 
technical specification as I would have to assess whether the word 
would be considered as derogatory (or injurious) in the jurisdiction 
where I reside.

I would not use the terminology as a figure of speech as there is a 
high probability that it could be considered as offensive nowadays.

The opinions expressed in 2018 were that the terminologies were 
acceptable.  My reading of the latest round of discussions is that 
the opinions have moved to not acceptable.  In my opinion, it was 
influenced by events in the United States [1].  Nowadays, those 
opinions spread quickly to other countries through Facebook or 
Twitter.  It is difficult to ignore that.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy

1. 
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-minneapolis-police-jp-morgan-race-exc/exclusive-jpmorgan-drops-terms-master-slave-from-internal-tech-code-and-materials-idUSKBN2433E4