From: b.scott@csuohio.edu   
      
   On Sat, 20 Sep 2008 03:56:03 +0100, Gerry Quinn   
    wrote in   
    in   
   rec.arts.sf.misc:   
      
   > In article ,   
   > aqua@internode.on.net says...   
      
   >> Suzanne Blom wrote:   
      
   >>> "James A. Donald"  wrote in message   
   >>> news:7lm2d4tahmknt36smaushp34c5sg9aj6he@4ax.com...   
      
   >>>> On Tue, 16 Sep 2008 06:55:41 -0400, Kevin J. Cheek   
      
   >>>>> It is . . . it's worse than a stereotype. I'm not sure what  to call   
   >>>>> it. Somehow or other there was this idea that black people liked   
   >>>>> watermelon to an inordinate degree. It became part of "gag" photos and   
   >>>>> many a plaster figurine of blacks in insulting stereotypical poses.   
      
   >>>> Most of it seems to be, like the blog "stuff white people like"   
   >>>> affectionate ridicule.  If someone actually wanted to be nasty to   
   >>>> blacks, he would surely focus on aspects of the stereotype more   
   >>>> hurtful than watermelons.   
      
   >>> I think this is the kind of thing that can't be "affectionate" to the   
   >>> intended victim.  It has too many hurtful associations.   
      
   >> In general, I think one should avoid generalising from affectionate   
   >> ridicule of a privileged/more powerful group (white people in this case)   
   >> to "affectionate ridicule" of the corresponding less privileged   
   >> group(s).  Particularly if one belongs to the more privileged group.   
   >   
   > Perhaps both serve slightly different but useful functions.  Let's   
   > assume, however realistic or otherwise it may be, that two groups exist,   
   > and the 'privileged' group has chosen to share some or all of its   
   > 'privileges' with the other.  It seems reasonable that members of this   
   > group will be concerned about the possibility of 'overshoot' in this   
   > regard.  Affectionate ridicule may serve to point up the details of the   
   > transition, just as affectionate ridicule from the other group may have   
   > pointed up the details of the prior inequality.   
      
   Ah, I see: ridicule from the top serves to show that the   
   privileged group aren't about to give up their privileged   
   status.  Calling it 'affectionate' is bullshit.  What you're   
   describing is 'We're being very generous, but you lot had   
   better not forget your real place in society'.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)