Nick wrote:
(a whole bunch snipped. read the thread for context)

I already have written that I regret the way in which
I initially introduced (I was writing too quickly) the
subject of racism, which I did not intend as a personal
criticism of Louis Blair. I can understand that
Louis Blair may have perceived it as a provocation,
which I did not intend. But I prefer not to censor
myself in writing about racism simply because
many other people evidently prefer to have
such writings censored.

Nick,

We've exchanged a note or two before and in general
I've often agreed with things you've said and readily
acknowledge some of the darker (racially related)
actions ongoing in the US. I've also had a tortuous,
very short, exchange with Louis where I gave up after
a handful of posts because of my perception of his
obstinance so I can sympathize with your efforts here.
However, the last sentence you wrote that I quoted
struck me as, well, a bit hypocritical or at least
indicative of insensitivity to Louis's point, one worth
pointing out.

From my outside perspective, this dispute appears
simple, and somewhat unnecessary, and readily
resolvable if intent, not execution, is the guide. Ok,
so Louis says "European Chess" as a differentiator
from other forms which DO have formal names that
don't include the word 'chess' but are more familiarly
known with geographical 'chess' names. You, being
sensitive to racial/racist issues and actions, are
not totally comfortable with this label and express
that opinion. I know from Bibuld's discussions here
(and obviously from thought and experience) that
"names", including spellings, can be a (subtle) form of
racist behavior so a comment has some point to it.
I read your intent to be educational, perhaps beyond
Louis, pointing out perhaps unintended effects of
lazy/imprecise writing.

Louis, on the other hand, appears to me to intend
no insult (and you have acknowledged you did not
mean to suggest he was racist) and is reacting to
the other side of the racial sensitivity coin. As one
who has considered deeply and experienced racism,
surely you recognize that an increased (societal)
sensitivity to racism comes, necessarily, with an
increased sensitivity to being unjustly accused of
being racist. It might be hard to accept but I know
I would feel I was being "censored" if I received
commentary suggesting what I said was unacceptable
when I had no ill intent. In the racial climate our
(not to imply you're from the US) society exists in,
your comments amount to defacto censorship. It
is in this light that I viewed your quoted comments
to be a bit hypocritical.

So, in my mind, we have a clash of two justifiable
sensitivities, something quite likely not to be resolved
cleanly on usenet. Toss in a little hyperbole and a bit
of over analysis, and *bingo*. Here's how I would hope the
conversation would play out in a more congenial,
first person encounter:

L: "....European Chess..."

N: "Louis, I'm sure you meant no ill will but some might
consider "European chess" to be insert appropriate
descriptive term. A more usual, neutral term to use
would be "western"

[(I'll expose my ignorance here--is
"western" an acceptable term to use?) - K.]

L: I'm sorry if I've offended you; be assured none was
intended. I'm comfortable with the term and will
continue to use it. Thanks for the information.


I don't see that much more is needed. A concept that I've
found useful in trying to debate on usenet *honorably* (a
difficult, not universally shared goal) is generosity of intent.
I was upbraided in the past in a political discussion group
(by a good friend) for making a point and preceding it with
the two quotes by which I was justifying it. He wondered
why I was being so aggressive. I realized I was throwing up
a priori, the defense to the [pointless attacks and twistings
of arguments experienced in groups like this one] that are
unnecessary when people debate honestly. He told me
in his discussions he always assumes best intent and
argues to that point, not the one that paints the other
person in the worst light that might be justified by some
tortured linguistic game (yes Larry, this is partly why
I hassle you; I want more honor in this group. Silly me.).
Had that method been in operation for this discussion, it
would have been over long ago.

K

PS Since I have your ear, could you offer me your take on the
printing of the cartoons depicting the Prophet Muhammad? I
know it will be more sensitive than mine and I'd like to hear it.
I'd also be interested in hearing what you think of the current
response of several western papers reprinting them to establish
(secular/societal) independence. I probably won't respond
much since it would be off topic, but I'm sure you'd give me
something good to think about.