Re: [tied] "Niggers of India"

----- Original Message -----
From: "george knysh" <gknysh@...>
To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, December 15, 2005 3:15 PM
Subject: Re: [tied] "Niggers of India"



<snip>

> > I do not believe that Africans' being black is
> > "more evident" or less
> > evident than the observation that they had no
> > 'locks' behind their heads;
> > nor more important;
>
> ****GK: Well it's the "black" connotation that
> survived in Latin, not the "lockless" one. Of course,
> older peoples weren't familiar with political
> correctness of the modern variety.****

<snip>

***
Patrick:

In my opinion, this has little to do with political correctness.

But, to look more closely at your basal assumption, consider the term
Aethiops.

Derived from Greek Aithíops. Some have translated it as 'burnt face'.

How pathetically naif!

First, fires are not 'black' or 'burnt'! Rather, they burn; and they do not
burn black unless our ancestors got rid of worn-out tires for their chariots
on them.

They burn orange-red.

And 'face' for -ops; it derives from *okW- for Heaven's sakes.

The classicist who suggested 'burnt face' had probably never seen an African
in person.

What this obviously refers to is the frightening reddish-streaked eyeballs
of many native Africans. The first time I saw this, I thought the poor man
was terminally pickled in alcohol.

He was not drunk at all; this was just the way he always looked.

Now, what was more 'evident'? His frightening eyes? or his coal-black skin?

***