From: george knysh
Message: 61694
Date: 2008-11-17
--- On Mon, 11/17/08, Rick McCallister <gabaroo6958@...> wrote:
--- On Mon, 11/17/08, Arnaud Fournet <fournet.arnaud@ wanadoo.fr> wrote:
> >
> > Aryan, as a term, preceded Nazism's noxious use of
> the term. Hamitic is
> > based on a racist concept --a group cursed by God. It
> also presuuposes a
> > dichotomoy between Semitic and the rest of the family
> which is not there.
> > It is an untenable term --like called Romance
> "Latino-Grenouille" ,
> >
> ============
>
> No, it's not untenable.
> This word was never intended as offensive.
> This word does not have any racist content in French.
>
> A.
It has offensive overtones in English, the language of this list.
****GK: Not to me it hasn't. But this is an interesting issue. I've always wondered how the various components of "political correctness" get started. Could it be as simple as this? Somebody somewhere puts forth his or her little idea with emphatic certainty. Others yield ("Gee I didn't realize...") and another item is added to the new decalogue... In my old Webster's of 1949 there is not a hint of "Hamitic" being objectionable. (p. 373: HAMITIC: "Of or pertaining to the Hamites, or the family of languages (HAMITIC languages) including ancient Egyptian, Coptic, and various modern languages. See LANGUAGE,Table. ----n. Any of the Hamitic languages." Any idea as to when and where (after 1949) "Hamitic" acquired "offensive overtones" and which authority sanctioned this?****