* Kevin A. McGrail: > I would posit that the 1962 date is rooted as much in the US Civil > Rights movement in the 1960's as anything else. Before then white and > black definitely had negative connotations [...]
And we're back, once again, to America: The *US* Civil Rights movement (which I consider a positive thing by the way). You obviously continue to ignore that white/black mean different things across the globe. If you talk about "die Schwarzen" (lit. "the Blacks") in Germany without specifying a different context, in most civil minded discussions people will assume you are talking about members of the either one of the established conservative parties CDU/CSU, i.e. the governing parties. "Die Roten" (lit. "the Reds") would be the socialist democratic party SPD, "die Gelben" (lit. "the Yellows") the free decmocratic party FDP, and so forth. Look at https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liste_der_deutschen_Bundesregierungen, the list of German governments over time, and you will see how the various colours match political parties here. This is just one country, but the one in which I happen to live, and what America thinks about colours does not interest me all that much. > SA is going to stop legitimizing and perpetuating the use of racially > charged language. This is and remains primarily a US-centric issue, no matter if you try to convince us (and perhaps even yourself) otherwise. I don't care if you can sleep better at night. It is obnoxious and arrogant to try and push a America-centric (or possibly Anglo-centric) viewpoint on the world. We do you the courtesy of speaking English, so please do us the courtesy of not bullying us about what you consider permissible or racially charged. > For those who insist, you have backwards compatibility and I hope the > change is embraced. Hope all you like. It is not. -Ralph
