Posted by zazenduckie on December 3, 2006, at 11:20:01
In reply to Re: Lou's response to gg's use of badge of shame » Lou Pilder, posted by SLS on December 3, 2006, at 7:25:29
>
>
> As I performed a search on Google, it appears that the term "badge of shame" has, in common practice, come to be used generically.There is a similiar controversey with animal rights groups using the term "holocaust" for the plight of endangered animals. I think some terms should not be allowed to become generic and acceptable.
http://www.adl.org/Anti_semitism/holocaust_imagery.asp
I have enormous sympathy for animals but the use of that term for what is happening to them is repugnant.
In the same way I am sensitive to people's wish not to be embarassed. But I suggest that a caution about someone's advice on an internet forum is in no way comparable to a "badge of shame". And to use the term generically is not something I would find to be a positive thing.
>
> However, with respect to Jews, an official "Badge of Shame" was imposed:
>
> "1215 - Fourth Lateran Council institutes the "Badge of Shame", a mark that all Jews are required to wear to distinguish themselves from Christians, and decrees that Jews shall not be seen in public on Good Friday. Fernando III, with the archbishop of Toledo, appeal to the Pope on behalf of the Iberian Jews. The pope, Honorius II, suspends the decision."
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_Muslim_occupation_of_the_Iberian_Peninsula
>
> I doubt very many people would know this fact. Even so, the generic use of the term is well established, and I do not feel that GG showed any lack of sensitivity for using it.
>
>
> - Scott
poster:zazenduckie
thread:706108
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20061202/msgs/709909.html