necoandjeff wrote:
> "Kevin Gowen" <kgowenNOSPAM@myfastmail.com> wrote in message
> news:2qcmltFtp9kgU3@uni-berlin.de...
> 
>>Curt Fischer wrote:
>>
>>
>>>necoandjeff wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>"Musashi" <Miyamoto@Hosokawa.co.jp> wrote in message
>>>>news:%610d.14217$FV3.7873@newssvr17.news.prodigy.com...
>>>>
>>>>>"Just for your information, the term Eskimo is now considered
>>>>>derogatory and has been
>>>>>replaced by the more acceptable term Inuit. Eskimo is used in this
>>>>>website only as a reference
>>>>>term for our international customers who may not be aware of the term
>>>>>Inuit."
>>>>
>>>>On the scale of racially derogatory terms, where the "N" word is at
>>>>the high end (i.e. the most widely understood to be derogatory), I
>>>>think the word Eskimo would be at the low end, below even the words
>>>>Oriental and Black (both of which are still widely used) but probably
>>>>a little bit higher than the word White.
>>>>
>>>>Jeff
>>>
>>>
>>>What's so offensive about "Black"?  Is it the unneeded capital letter?
>>
>>I never understood the big deal about "oriental", either. Neither does
>>my oriental wife.
> 
> 
> All depends on where you are (back to my point about words and meaning and
> collectives). Here in San Francisco (or LA for that matter) if you were to
> refer to Asians as "Orientals" you would sound like some uneducated hick
> from the Midwest.

Well, thank God that we have educated California sophisticates like 
Barbra Streisand and Rosie O'Donnell to enlighten us rubes.

See, I mentioned God with a straight face. That shows what an uneducated 
hick I am.

That aside, your post is not responsive. I understand that some people 
get their dander up ("get upset" for you sophisticates in California) 
when they hear "oriental" used to refer to a human being. My statement 
questioned why.

- Kevin