Saturday, April 28, 2007

Fjordman Asks, “Isn’t Glossocracy Great?”

The Fjordman Report

The noted blogger Fjordman is filing this report via Gates of Vienna.
For a complete Fjordman blogography, see The Fjordman Files. There is also a multi-index listing here
. [editorializing in this post by Dymphna].


Fjordman happened upon yet two more examples of verboten words: “Mexican” and “immigrant.”

In the first story, a man in Iowa was fired for referring to someone from Mexico as a “Mexican.”

Foreign Person From Unknown CountryPipe welder Bill Hendeley Jr. said he was fired from his job Wednesday for using the word “Mexican” in describing a person from Mexico at a group safety meeting.

Hendeley said he has worked for Fagen Inc., an engineering and construction company based in Granite Falls, Minn., off and on for the past 10 years. The company is building an addition to the Big River Resources ethanol production plant in West Burlington.

Hendeley, who recently moved to Burlington, said he has never been fired, has never even been reprimanded for making inappropriate comments, and co-workers describe him as a model employee.

At a group safety meeting Wednesday, however, Hendeley singled out supervisors and a Hispanic worker for smoking in inappropriate places. Smoking is only allowed in a designated area across the road from the plant.

“I guess if you’re a supervisor or a Mexican, you can smoke anywhere you like,” Hendeley reportedly told an Hispanic safety supervisor.

Oops, can you see where this story is headed??

Following the suspension, Hendeley and his co-workers said they observed supervisors and a Hispanic woman smoking in trailers near the plant.

Hendeley said he simply was pointing out discrepancies in policy enforcement.

After the safety meeting, Hendeley was called to a private meeting with the safety supervisor and two other managers to discuss his comments, and was fired shortly after, he said.

“We don’t support discrimination on our job site,” said Chad Warner, Fagen project supervisor. Warner declined to comment on the case further.

Hendeley asked the safety supervisor if calling someone from Mexico a Mexican offends him. The supervisor answered “yes,” according to Hendeley.

Can you say "this was an example of mau-mauing?" If you dare you're in deep do-do with the Language Police.

Please note that it was not reported what the consequences are for calling someone a supervisor.

Meanwhile, Fjordman found this cautionary tale in Britain, via the Guardian:

Use of the word immigrant as an insult can amount to proof of racial hostility, the court of appeal ruled yesterday.

- - - - - - - - - -
The court held that a charge of racially aggravated assault against a woman who attacked a GP after referring to him as “an immigrant doctor” had been wrongly thrown out by Judge Breen at Luton crown court in January.

He decided that “immigrant” did not denote membership of a specific racial group under the 1998 Crime and Disorder Act. But three appeal judges said he should have left the matter to the jury.

he defendant, Mrs D — who cannot be named for legal reasons — [and because she's a blooming idiot] took her son aged three to a Bedford surgery because of a rash.

Dr Hair Newal said the child could go home, but she should contact the surgery if further symptoms developed.

When Mrs D demanded an immediate diagnosis, he suggested she find another doctor. She replied: “I can’t find another doctor. All the good doctors are taken up by asylum seekers and I am left with an immigrant doctor.”

She then tore the letter he was writing and tried to grab her son’s medical records. Dr Newal suffered scratches.

Lord Justice Auld, sitting with Mr Justice Beatson and Mr Justice Wakerley, said use of the word “immigrant” could denote membership of a broad racial group.

The judge was wrong to rule it simply meant “non-British”. It had been for the jury to decide whether the use of the word demonstrated racial hostility.

The judges’ decision was in reply to a point of law raised by the attorney general, Lord Goldsmith. The ruling did not overturn Mrs D’s acquittal.

I'll bet it's a comfort to the British taxpayer to know how much officious official time and money is being spent on trifles like this one. Well, no doubt it keeps the judges and Lord Goldsmith off the streets and out of trouble.


Does anyone else have more Orwellian anecdotes to pass on to us? Please leave any stories of officious idiocy in the comments where we can all enjoy them…or weep in our cups as the occasion may call for.

Meanwhile, did you hear the story about the Mick, the Pollack, and the person of unknown origin? They go into a bar, see…*

*[I found “Mick” and “Pollack” in the spell checker because I failed to capitalize them. “Mexican” was there, too. Spellchecker is going to the principal's office right now and will have this word removed painfully, without benefit of anesthesia.]

29 comments:

Mikael said...

Forgive my ignorance, but why is it an insult for a person from Mexico to be referred to as a Mexican? I'm truly puzzled, honest to God.

I'm from Denmark. If I settled down in the US could I get my boss fired for calling me a Dane?? Could I sue? (Hmm, there's a thought.)

Mackety said...

I am a Dane too and not quite as puzzled as Mikael.

Some years ago I was engaged with a leftwing jewish american girl from Seattle.

I am not exactly what you would call a racist. In fact I am pretty much colorblind, in the sense, that I just dont care what color people have.

Anyway. Once when talking with her I happened to use the word Negro. I used it of course in its original meaning, as simply stating the fact that I was talking about people with black skincolour.

Soooo, the woman litterally FREAKED OUT, I mean she was hysterical and completely and utterly horrified.

For my own part I was horrified too, by her reaction.

I guess it propbably wasnt until I met her half afroamerican/half vietnamese former boyfriend and BTW had a nice time studying american social life close up, that she realized once and for all, that I could care less about peoples colour.

Peoples beliefs on the other hand...well thats a completely different story.

Anyway. Its not just you americans who suffer from political "correctnes".

The stupidity of this phenomenon is suffocating any serious debate in Europe as well, allthough things have improved a little in Denmark over the last few years!

Phanarath said...

heh yes.. Hi Mackety :-)

The fact that the word "Mexican" was seen as an insult, must be the biggest insult to Mexicans of all.

Some Mexicans should sue that company for claiming that their nationality is an insult. Then the good times will really begin.

What about roadsigns showing the way to Mexico. Someday soon they will have to be taken down, or they might be seen as insulting to the country they point to, that country down south, eeh, of the US, you know the M-word, under Texas.

What about the state New-Mexico. We might want to start calling it New-M-word.

The personnel at the borders between The US and the M-word, will have to be instructed to stop asking people who cross, where they are from and where they going, since could be seen as a kind of entrapment. And we cant have official who try to lure people into using hateful and insulting words.

Anyone who asks an M-wordian where he or she is from, will have to be arrested for trying to get others to use illegal language.

So next time you had a little to much fun in Chihuahua, and someone asks you where you spend your holidays. Just call the cops on the racist hatemonger.

Mikael said...

Mackety,

As for the word Negro, one jolts in one's chair when TV from time to time shows snips of some of Martin Luther King's speeches:

"But one hundred years later, the Negro still is not free. One hundred years later, the life of the Negro is still sadly crippled by the manacles of segregation and the chains of discrimination. One hundred years later, the Negro lives on a lonely island of poverty in the midst of a vast ocean of material prosperity. One hundred years later, the Negro is still languished in the corners of American society and finds himself an exile in his own land."

Was Dr. King an insensitive racist?

"The Negro" has come a long way since then, and a good thing it is. But who decided that the word Negro could not be uttered in decent company?

Anyway, I'm still curious of why a person from Mexico cannot be referred to as a Mexican. I just don't get it. Would I be in trouble if I called, say, Dymphna an American. If so, please let me know. I don't want to step on anybody's toes!

Phanarath said...

Mikael

In the US the word "Mexican" is used as a racial term more then a national one.

Political-correctness is much older in the US then it is in Europe. So for many years they have had to use codes in order to talk about different races. Irish, Danish or German, then becomes a code for white; a way to speak about a persons race, without being politically incorrect.

The word "Mexican" has also for a long time been used to describe a race rather then a nationality. "Asian" isn't used to talk about people from the continent Asia, but is also mostly used as a racial term.

But then after some time, the codes also become politicaly incorrect, and people will think of new codes and so on.

At least this is my understanding of the whole mess, maybe some Americans can explain it better.

Karridine said...

Phanarath... I find you assertions accurate in their descriptions of -perhaps- a racist MINORITY in America, but I have NEVER USED such systematized euphemisms, nor heard them used around me... and I've been a legal adult for 42 years!

This 'politically correct' poison falls useless, embarrassed to support itself in the company of rational, mature, loving and informed people...

And in my life, I've met HUNDREDS of such people, and they are NOT ALL Baha'is!

Archonix said...

My understanding is that if you want to insult someone from across the border, you call them a spic. Mexican is a nationality... then again most hispanics in california and southern texas are of mexican origin so it's likely the terms have become interchangable there. Which is sad...

As for making Negro a bad word, well, that's whitey's fault. More accurately it's the fault of a certain sort of white 'liberal', or whatever they call themselves back then, trying to show solidarity with the oppressed black mass by enforcing a new morality on the general population without actually asking the blacks - sorry, people of colour - whether they wanted or needed it. And the result? More molly-coddling, more racial strife and more excuses for those same 'liberals' to meddle in the name of racial harmony.

mistkerl said...

I think Phan is a little right. There are definitely people who use the term 'Mexican' in a derogatory meaning. These are the same people who would call Colombians, or anyone else from South America 'Mexicans'.

But, it doesn't sound like the guy in this story was doing that at all. It's a sad situation, but not surprising to me.

Karridine said...

Archonix: Concur your analysis!
I recall hearing a southern white on TV in 1954 or so...

"Y'all don't unnerstayan... Ah LOVE mah niggers!"

Since then, I can (as a professional linguist for more than 30 years) agree that there is a qualitative difference between nigger and Negro.

But the larger issue involves human rights, self-respect, racism, self-pity and political systems which PLAY ON THESE in order to PROLONG THEIR DELETERIOUS EFFECTS!

We STILL have a 'priesthood' of privileged privilege-seekers manipulating the levers of today's power IN ORDER TO keep themselves privileged!

Their favorite weapon is SHOUTING "Racist!" while pointing their finger at YOU (or me)!

Karridine said...

MistKerl: I hope the gentleman SUES for wrongful termination of employment!

Baron Bodissey said...

You Danes have done pretty well at getting your minds around this one -- as well as anybody can.

It's a recent phenomenon, maybe in the last 30 years or so. Before that "Mexican" meant "a person from Mexico". Now if I say it, the racial grievance-mongers take me to mean "illegal immigrant person from south of the border".

Which I often do, because many of the people from Mexico I see are here illegally. And we are not allowed to dicover if they are illegal, so the entire group known as "Mexicans" gets tainted by that association. The refusal to talk clearly about it and deal with the illegal immigration problem has helped create a new pejorative term.

Thank you, Multiculturalism.

As for "spic" -- that's applied to Hispanics generally, and can include Puerto Ricans and so on. There are other insults referring to Mexicans specifically, such as "beaner", "wetback", and "greaser".

Now we'll see if the Google hate-speech bots can find these comments and shut them down!

Phanarath said...

Karridine

I had to ask someone what assertions and euphemisms are, but I am still not sure if I understand what you are writing.

More then 10 years ago on an Internet board, I saw an American calling another American a racist for telling a joke about Mexicans, and he said that racist scum like him should be cleaned from the human gene pool. I entered the argument and said that Mexicans where not a race but a Nationality, and that real racist where not people who told jokes but rather people who wanted to clean the human gene pool.

After that many other Americans entered the argument, and said that Mexicans was indeed a race, and that the education system in Denmark must be very bad, since I didn't know this simple fact. Even Mexicans considered themselves a race, I was told, and If I ever said what I had just written in Mexico, the Mexicans would kill me.

If you are right they are a MINORITY(sorry for the loud language) then I suppose, they had all gathered around that argument back then, and somehow kept all other Americans away.

spackle said...

This has nothing to do with this topic at but I wanted to mention this. Oxford university will be holding a lecture soon entitled "This house regrets the founding of the USA". It would be interesting if any UK readers could attend this laughfest. Note that there is no lectures entitled "This house regrets the founding of The Islamic republic of Iran, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Radical Islam etc. Its nice to see higher learning continues to be pure indoctrination. I wonder if these students realize they would most likely be learning about the wonders of Herr Hitler if the US didnt exsist.

ricpic said...

First you single out a certain group as a protected category or class.
Second, which follows from first, you treat this group, by law, more equally than other, unprotected groups.
Third, the unprotected develop a perfectly rational resentment of the protected, and occasionally express their resentment.
Fourth, you come down like a ton of bricks on any who dare do the above.
Lastly, you are shocked! shocked! at the level of anger you have created.

Phanarath said...

Ricpic

Thats Brilliant :-)

Mikael said...

Baron,

Thank you for clarifying the "M"-issue. I truly had no idea. It's not easy to navigate in the rocky waters of Political Correct New Speak. I shall try to pay more attention in the future.

Eppure si muove, and someone from Mexico is a Mexican /mumble

kyle said...

spackle, I googled that Oxford thing and came up with this:

http://www.oxford-union.org/trinity?SQ_CALENDAR_VIEW=event&SQ_CALENDAR_EVENT_ID=809&SQ_CALENDAR_DATE=2007-04-26

Speakers in Proposition:

* Robert Griffiths (UK Communist Party)
* David Pidcock (UK ISlamic Party)
* Jamal Harwood (Hizb ut-Tahir)

Speakers in Opposition:

* Peter Rodman (Former US Assistant Sec o Defence)
* Matt Frei (BBC UK Correspondent)
* Jonah Goldberg (National Review)


The "speakers in proposition" are beyond me. I was expecting that it would be people like Matt Frei attacking the US, but the whole thing is so crazy he's the type defending it!

Also, it was 3 days ago apparently. Does anybody know what insane stuff they came up with?

ricpic said...

Thanks, phanarath.

Wish it weren't so, but alas...

Phanarath said...

Karridine

I have read your first post now maybe 50 times, to try and understand it.

It seems to me, that you think, that the idea of even talking about someones race, is in itself a racist act. But you dont realy make that clear, its just an underlying theme.

Me, I dont think like that at all. I think race is as good to talk about as gender or age. I think this is why I had such a hard time understanding your post.

Phanarath said...

Ricpic

We can change that. Dont think for a minute that we cant. We have brilliant people like you on our side :-)

I know, I know... I`ve posted a lot in this tread. Ill take a breake now.

kepiblanc said...

When asked, I used to say "Jeg er Sønderjyde" [I am from the Southernmost part of Jutland]. Now, in these times of globalization I say "I am a Sonder-Jude". - Does that make me a racist ?

gun-totin-wacko said...

I'm not so sure about this one. It does kinda seem that there was a trace of hostility underneath the guy's original comment about "supervisors and Mexicans". Not enough, IMHO to toss away the First Amendment, but I do sense in the story a trace of something.

What bothers me, and what I guess is the relevant part, is that the supervisor was "offended" by the mere word "Mexican". Even if I'm correct about his use of the term, that still doesn't justify his firing. After all, Mexican is a *descriptive* term, regardless of whether you consider it a race, a nationality, or whatever.

Yorkshireminer said...

I was wondering, will the word Swede like Mexican will become one of those forbidden words in the future. We wouldn't want to offend all those muslim rapists would we.

turn said...

Phanarath-

You are obviously not just a racist, but a sexist and an ageist, too.

This particular Twilight Zone brought to you by Al Sharpton, Jill Ireland and AARP.

________________________

Operator: "911. What's your emergency?"

Victim: "I was...was just mugged".

O: Are you hurt; do you need medical help?

V: I think I'm all right but the mugger has our wallets and all my wife's jewelry.

O: And where are you now?

V: I'm still where it happened at K St between 15th and 16th.

O: Did you get a good look at your mugger?

V: Oh, Yeah!

O: Great! Describe the mugger, please.

V: Well, he was--

O: Are you sure it was a person of the male persuausion?

V: Well, he had a beard and moustache.

O: OK, we're getting somewhere. So it was a non-follically challenged person probably male. What else?

V; He was short and--

O: Excuse me, sir, but your language could be construes as hateful to some.

V: All right, he was vertically challenged and quite fat.

O: Again, sir, I must warn you that large people are a protected class now.

V: He WASN'T large--he was shor--I mean vertically challenged but he was...of a large measurement around his middle parts.

O: What else? What about skin color?

V: Umm. Errr. What exactly am I allowed to say?

O: Go ahead, sir. I need all the information you can give me.

V: OKaaay. He was dark ski-

O: Watch it, sir. These calls are taped and a copy is sent to the ACLU.

V: What can I say?

O: He was rich in melanin.

V: All right. He was rich in melanin

O: I'll put out an APB for a vertically challenged large person, probably of the male gender with melanin enriched skin and facial follicles. Is that about right

V: Sheesh. Forget it!

livfreerdie said...

Please check out a proposed bill, sponsored by Rep. John Conyers, a known dhimmi. It is H R 1592.

Tom

Phanarath said...

turn

hehe, thats some seriusly funny stuff :-)

Profitsbeard said...

The Formerly-Known-as the Mexican Hat Dance Song?

Racially-Charged Jumping Beans?

Hatefully-Named Restaurant?

Bigot-Fiesta?


P.C. Gone Wild!

This guy needs a good non-Mexican lawyer, probably one with a name that ends in something synonymous with a German beer-drinking mug.

SlowNnice said...

Racism, gender, sectarianism, Nationality, even sub-nationality such as southerner or northerner can be offensive if denoted in negitive tones. I in no way feel sorry for the pipe welder who used his pidgion-holing comment to make his point. It sounded like grand-standing to play to a like-minded audience who has a basic polarizatin against another sector in the construction market.

Had he said "supervisors and blacks" it is unlikely this would have carried so much discussion.

I would say that a few days off might have been just as effective a warning to the group as a whole. But I was not there and did not here the "tone" of the comment. Do you think he might have been a disgruntled smoker?

Archonix said...

Slonnice, you seem to have missed the point. The supervisor and his ethnically alternative companion were smoking in an area where they weren't meant to be smoking. Now perhaps in some places this might be somethiong you could over look, but this incident took place in an ethanol production plant. Ethanol burns like buggery. Smoking around ethanol is a very, very stupid idea whether you're a supervisor or not.

So the point is, why should these people be allowed to break the rules?