LL-L "Phonology" 2008.04.21 (07) [E]

Tue Apr 22 03:08:55 UTC 2008

=======================================================================

 L O W L A N D S - L * ISSN 189-5582 * LCSN 96-4226

 http://www.lowlands-l.net * lowlands.list at gmail.com

 Rules & Guidelines: http://www.lowlands-l.net/rules.php

 Posting: lowlands-l at listserv.linguistlist.org - lowlands.list at gmail.com

 Commands ("signoff lowlands-l" etc.): listserv at listserv.net

 Server Manual: http://www.lsoft.com/manuals/1.8c/userindex.html

 Archives: http://listserv.linguistlist.org/archives/lowlands-l.html

 Encoding: Unicode (UTF-8) [Please switch your view mode to it.]

 Administration: lowlands.list at gmail.com or sassisch at yahoo.com

 You have received this because you have been subscribed upon request.
 To unsubscribe, please send the command "signoff lowlands-l" as message
 text from the same account to listserv at listserv.linguistlist.org or
 sign off at http://linguistlist.org/subscribing/sub-lowlands-l.html.

 A=Afrikaans Ap=Appalachian B=Brabantish D=Dutch E=English F=Frisian
 L=Limburgish LS=Lowlands Saxon (Low German) N=Northumbrian
 S=Scots Sh=Shetlandic V=(West) Flemish Z=Zeelandic (Zeeuws)

=======================================================================

 ========================================================================
L O W L A N D S - L  - 21 April 2008 - Volume 07
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Please set the encoding mode to Unicode (UTF-8).
If viewing this in a web browser, please click on
the html toggle at the bottom of the archived page.
 ========================================================================

From: Luc Hellinckx <luc.hellinckx at gmail.com>
Subject: LL-L "Phonology"

Beste Ron,

You wrote:

I understand that Stewart has been taken to task by some sections of the
media and such, and supposedly he has apologized.

There's no excuse for this sort of thing as a public persona in a public
forum, and it's quite contrary to today's code of ethics in the US. So far I
have witnessed this sort of "running off of the mouth" only in ... well ...
less than intellectual shows such as Howard Stern's, who told Milly Venilly
(sp?) that they can't possibly be German and that, if they were, they must a
heck of a time over there, and ("Oh, grow up!") Joan Rivers who used to tell
funny horror stories about Lufthansa stewardesses. I hasten to add that,
while these persons happen to be of Jewish descent, this sort of behavior
used to transcend ethnic lines. These days the general guideline for
comedians seems to be: if you need to make fun of an ethnic group, use your
own -- and even that can be hurtful. Furthermore, the general American code
of ethics does not condone ridicule across religious lines. However,
comedians that grew up Roman Catholic regularly indulge in such ridicule.

I'm not saying that these days there are no hidden prejudices against
Germans in this country, among Jews or otherwise. (And remember that many
American Jews are German as well, which you can tell by the accents of those
that grew up in Germany, such as Dr. Ruth.)  But it is unusual for people to
act on it in public. Personally I have so far not experienced any such
expressed sentiments. My two best American friends happen to be Jewish, and
I am on excellent and in some cases friendly terms with all practicing and
non-practicing Jews with whom I have regular contacts. This includes
professional superiors who have chosen to give me commendations and
excellent references.

I consider John Stewart's outburst an aberration.

An aberration? Just a lapsus linguae?

Today, to my amazement, I read that the US Catholic Church ranks first in
terms of members;

http://www.knack.be/blog/blog-algemeen/71-88-3426/katholieken-in-amerika.html

mainly, because a unified Protestant Church doesn't exist. Second and third
are the Southern Baptist Convention and the United Methodist Church
respectively.

So basically, in the US:

   - you have religious freedom
   - but are not allowed to make fun of religion

I think I would understand this rule better if you had no religious freedom.
Therefore, I was wondering: Is this a case of enlightened absolutism or
rather absolute enlightenment?

Anyway, I'm not Catholic (or Protestant) for that matter, but after reading

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Catholicism_in_the_United_States

I couldn't but agree with historian Schlesinger's famous line about "the
deepest bias in the history of the American people"...and he was Jewish.

Quest: If Herr Ratzinger had an accent and a smile like the Dalai Lama and
Borat's humour, would that make him (more) acceptable? :-D

Kind greetings,

Luc Hellinckx

----------

From: R. F. Hahn <sassisch at yahoo.com>
Subject: Phonology

Hi, Luc!

I apologize in case it was I who led you to believe that in the US you "are
not allowed to make fun of religion." In fact, you can make fun of religion,
ethnicities, nationalities or whatever all you like. It does not amount to
illegal acts unless it amounts to libel or harassment. In other words, there
is no law against it. There is freedom of expression (which would make a law
like the Austrian and German one against denying the Holocaust
unconstitutional). Furthermore, on the rare side elsewhere, there is
constitutional separation between church and state (where "church" means any
religious institution). In other words, there is no official state religion,
and there may not be one. Stewart did not break any law, and no one is
suggesting he did.

Stewart is an employee of a major mainstream TV network. His show is based
on irreverent humor, which is his *shtik*, and much of it is rather daring,
"edgy," and it has its following. As such he is a public persona within a
well-established organization, and this makes him subject to a code of
ethics or code of conduct. If he breaks it, it does not necessarily have to
be an illegal act. It's between him and his employers, or in this case
rather between his employers and their advertisers ... given that "money
talks." Some employers use bigotry as a gimmick; others ban any trace of it,
and it is within their right to fire an employee that breaks the rules. This
is because, despite his personal freedom of speech, he is subject to a code
of conduct imposed by his employers or by his professional community. The
same applies for instance to physicians; they aren't allowed to spout off as
they like (e.g. "I don't like your face and your accent."), or a person
working in a shop or restaurant being surly and rude may not keep his or her
job for very long even if they didn't commit illegal acts.

People of virtually all ethnicities and belief systems are supposed to live
together in harmony in this country, and it is important to most US
Americans, at least *these* days, that disharmony disappear or at least not
be aggravated. This requires that all ethnicities and beliefs be at least
treated with respect. What your private notions are is your own business.
No, it is not illegal to be rude or to be a bigot as long as you don't
discriminate or otherwise harm people. We are talking about social
etiquette, social acceptability.

I am not Catholic or Protestant either, and there was a time when at a less
mature stage of development I liked to make fun of organized religion or any
other sort of establishment. Nowadays I would do anything within my powers
to help Catholics or Protestants or Wiccans or Hindus or Shamanists or
Atheists or whoever to exercise the right to their beliefs as long as the
very foundation of their beliefs do not seek to harm others. While it may be
within my legal rights to go around trashing the Pope or the Dalai Lama or
Ali Khan or whoever, it would in the very least be "not helpful," to use
Heiko's words. We are talking about etiquette, ethics and responsible
behavior, not about law.

As for anti-Catholic sentiments in the US, I am aware that there is a
history of it, but I have never come across any expression of it and believe
it's mostly a thing of the past. Hard though it may be to imagine it now,
there was a time when many American Protestants believed that Irish people
represented an inferior race and were good only for servants' jobs. It isn't
even all that long ago when in Europe you were considered an "idiot" if you
were deaf or had a hunchback.  Happily, those and other odious notions are a
thing of the past. Keeping them in the past requires some sort of restraint,
and that's the job of widely accepted etiquette and codes of conduct, and of
course education. For me personally, it all boils down to respect and
compassion.

*Noog preestert!*

Regards,
Reinhard/Ron

•

==============================END===================================

 * Please submit postings to lowlands-l at listserv.linguistlist.org.

 * Postings will be displayed unedited in digest form.

 * Please display only the relevant parts of quotes in your replies.

 * Commands for automated functions (including "signoff lowlands-l")

   are to be sent to listserv at listserv.linguistlist.org or at

   http://linguistlist.org/subscribing/sub-lowlands-l.html.

*********************************************************************
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/lowlands-l/attachments/20080421/fa8e1381/attachment.htm>