On Wed, Jul 29, 2020 at 09:09:41PM +0000, STARK, BARBARA H wrote:
> All over the world, women and societies are brainwashed by people in control of broadcast and print media that having dark skin is unattractive. I???ve seen reports about this from India, Ghana, South Africa, Japan, Korea, the United States, and elsewhere. They are sold skin bleaching products that cause cancer, kidney damage, fetal damage, etc. The message that ???dark??? is evil/bad/ugly/stupid has real consequences.
And in "pinkskin" countries, people go to indoor tanning, take pills,
cremes or sprays to get darker skin, a lot of which i was told is
problematic or dangerous as well. I know a country that elected
a man president who is using some method of darkening his skin.
Not to speak of all the other bodily alterations and augmentations done
to gain more self confidence, and to have more success in job, relationship
or other social situations.
Are specific skin tanning products maybe a good next big thing to get fixed/prohibited by a public outcry as we've seen for many food, agricultural, beauty products ? Sure, it could be, but i don't think this is caused by a unique oppression of blackness. I think it is yet another example of self-oppression by perceptions of societal beauty norms, and there are so many examples other than just skin color (either ways).
Cheers
Toerless
> * https://www.npr.org/sections/ed/2015/07/13/421744763/how-textbooks-can-teach-different-versions-of-history (and you can find many other articles if you search for ???Texas State Board of Education history???
>
> From: ietf <ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx> On Behalf Of Carlos M. Martinez
> Sent: Wednesday, July 29, 2020 1:42 PM
> To: ietf@xxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [Offlist] IESG Statement On Oppressive or Exclusionary Language
>
>
> Hi all
>
> On 24 Jul 2020, at 20:11, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
>
> And we also know that language policing can be an oppressive and
> exclusionary tool, and a great deal of caution and discretion is
> required to avoid that outcome.
>
> I fully agree.
>
> http://paulgraham.com/orth.html<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__paulgraham.com_orth.html&d=DwMFaQ&c=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=LoGzhC-8sc8SY8Tq4vrfog&m=5y-_0C2d770v07iq5xllNPU2mkVazNxHlsEAAlHx2cs&s=IQPYiadfx2TZyc0TVa3Fhl2fIRp6nrXiIEbhBMSoeFs&e=>
>
> A sobering read.
>
> Language control has been for ages a preferred tool for societal/thought control. Just go over a bit of history and make a list of different organizations that tried to control language.
>
> Without even googling:
>
> * The Catholic Church during the Middle Ages
> * Every fascist government in the first half of the 20th century
> * Every military dictatorship during most of the 20th century
> * Quite a few regimes currently in power. No need to name them, they are known to all
>
> Language control creates a very powerful control tool that if it were to fall on the wrong hands. Even things created with the best intentions can do incredible harm if suddenly the wrong set of people are in charge.
>
> As someone who grew up in a military dictatorship I have first hand experience on this. An uncle of mine spent a week in jail in 1974 just for uttering the word ???communist??? on the street. A word that had been banned.
>
> The IETF has a lot of work to do in order to ensure an inclusive, open minded and welcoming environment, one that will lead to more and better technology being developed within its framework. Language control is not something that will help, and could be dangerous in the future.
>
> /Carlos
--
---
tte@xxxxxxxxx
