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
