Post by Light Rises on Mar 11, 2005 17:54:07 GMT -5
...Weeeeellll, sorta. XD Actually, I was studying an article for one of my classes -- cultural anthropology, to be exact -- in preparation for a mid-term. Then, lo and behold, I stumbled across THIS passage:
"If the power of a stage name to characterize personality seems of relatively minor consequence in human affairs, consider the effect of a different sort of appellation: 'boy.' It was -- and sometimes still is -- the form of address employed by whites in the American South in speaking to black males of any age. This word, many authorities believe, served as an instrument of subjugation. It implied that the black was not a man but a child, someone not mature enough to be entrusted with responsibility for himself, let alone authority over others. His inferior position was thus made to seem natural and justified, and it could be enforced without compunction."
This immediately reminded me of a discussion we had on the original Boggs' Board, during one of the times when we were talking about how "Lizard Boy" might actually be a derogatory term. I think Pitbulllady had mentioned something then along the lines of what was stated in the above article -- which, together, seem to further legitimize even more our suspicions about "Lizard Boy" being a racial insult directed at lizard monsters like Randall.
There was one more bit in the article right after that one, actually, that I thought was also interesting. I'll just post it here for now, so that you guys can make of it what you can.
"Characterizing people by tagging them with a word label is a world-wide practice. Many peoples use a single word to designate both themselves and the human race. 'The Carib Indians, for example, have stated with no equivocation, "We alone are people,"' reported anthropologist Jack Conrad. 'Similarly, the ancient Egyptians used the word romet (men) only among themselves and in no case for strangers. The Lapps of Scandinavia reserve the term "human being" for those of their own kind, while the Cherokee Indians call themselves Ani-Yunwiya, which means "principal people." The Kiowa Indians of the Southwest are willing to accept other peoples as human, but the very name, Kiowa, meaning "real people," shows their true feeling.' The effect of reserving a term indicating 'human' to one group is far-reaching. It alters the perception of anyone from outside that group. He is not called 'human,' and need not be treated as human. Like an animal, he can be entrapped, beaten, or even killed with more or less impunity."
So...your thoughts?
~Light Rises
"If the power of a stage name to characterize personality seems of relatively minor consequence in human affairs, consider the effect of a different sort of appellation: 'boy.' It was -- and sometimes still is -- the form of address employed by whites in the American South in speaking to black males of any age. This word, many authorities believe, served as an instrument of subjugation. It implied that the black was not a man but a child, someone not mature enough to be entrusted with responsibility for himself, let alone authority over others. His inferior position was thus made to seem natural and justified, and it could be enforced without compunction."
This immediately reminded me of a discussion we had on the original Boggs' Board, during one of the times when we were talking about how "Lizard Boy" might actually be a derogatory term. I think Pitbulllady had mentioned something then along the lines of what was stated in the above article -- which, together, seem to further legitimize even more our suspicions about "Lizard Boy" being a racial insult directed at lizard monsters like Randall.
There was one more bit in the article right after that one, actually, that I thought was also interesting. I'll just post it here for now, so that you guys can make of it what you can.
"Characterizing people by tagging them with a word label is a world-wide practice. Many peoples use a single word to designate both themselves and the human race. 'The Carib Indians, for example, have stated with no equivocation, "We alone are people,"' reported anthropologist Jack Conrad. 'Similarly, the ancient Egyptians used the word romet (men) only among themselves and in no case for strangers. The Lapps of Scandinavia reserve the term "human being" for those of their own kind, while the Cherokee Indians call themselves Ani-Yunwiya, which means "principal people." The Kiowa Indians of the Southwest are willing to accept other peoples as human, but the very name, Kiowa, meaning "real people," shows their true feeling.' The effect of reserving a term indicating 'human' to one group is far-reaching. It alters the perception of anyone from outside that group. He is not called 'human,' and need not be treated as human. Like an animal, he can be entrapped, beaten, or even killed with more or less impunity."
So...your thoughts?
~Light Rises
