Re: The Hidden Agenda (4 of 4)

To the anonymous poster:

Admittedly, I do not keep up with the message board more than once 
every week or two, but two of my associates brought your post to my 
attention.  You bring up several valid points, however I have to take 
issue with some of your statements.  If, as you stated, you posted 
the open letter "out of love," I hope that you will take this 
criticism constructively.  I am just going in order of appearence in 
your posts with these, not in any particular order of importance.

Firstly, in your criticism of NAQT's use of the term "Oriental," you 
rightly called it outmoded, however you continued to say that it 
was "Facist, ethnocentric hate-speech," and "anti-American."  I agree 
entirely that it is a poorly chosen word, but the use of throwing 
about inflammatory terms, such as "fascism" and "anti-American," 
serves only to polarize your audience, and to dilute their meaning.  
I disagree with your interpretation of the word's use, as well.  This 
is merely a difference of opinion, but I believe that it was just a 
poorly chosen word by an uninformed, but well intentioned, person, 
rather than a malicious plot to "rob" anyone of their identity.

Secondly, you criticize the coloration of the website.  This may have 
been factious on your part (I hope), but that most likely has more to 
do with a lack of creativity than anything else.

Thirdly, the use of "Japanese" and "Egyptian" in NAQT's description 
of authors and dieties, respectively.  This appears, to me, to be a 
harmless descriptive term.  Unless you can determine a better way to 
identify authors or dieties of a certain country or region that does 
not speciffically mention the name of that country or region, I see 
that as the only way to do it.  They did not use any racial slurs in 
identifying them, and I interpret their use of descriptive terms as a 
way of identifying what that group has in common, rather than 
saying "You Gotta Know These Dieties,"  then explaining that they all 
are from Egypt.

Fourthly, TRASH is criticized for not having themed packs on certain 
topics.  Part of the reason that there is no John Leguizamo themed 
pack (that you or I are aware of) is that it is very difficult to 
write a good themed pack on any topic, and even moreso when you limit 
the theme to a topic as speciffic as one person.  If there is not one 
out there, I encourage you to write one.  You also criticize TRASH 
for its subject areas, however there are plenty of questions about 
hip-hop, rap, r&b, all major professional sports, including soccer, 
rugby, and other sports not necessarily popular in the US.  Also, for 
the record, I cannot recall any preponderance of Dr. Who questions, 
but I will take your word for it.

Fifthly, I agree with your statement about ACF being the area that 
has the greatest opportunity to expand the quizbowl cannon.  I did 
not know that Senator Thurmond had any involvement with ACF, but I 
will take your word for that.

Pen ultimately, in your conclusion you mention the "power structures 
that affect our daily lives."  In this statement, I hope that you are 
alluding to bias in local, state and federal government (particularly 
their overwillingness to confiscate the hard earned money from its 
constituants), rather than any quizbowl group.  Quizbowl is an 
enjoyable activity (or at least it should be), and it can consume a 
great deal of time, energy, and expense.  I cannot speak for anyone 
else, but if I ever found myself under the impression that any of the 
quizbowl organizations had an affect on my daily life, I think it 
would be time for me to quit.  This is, after all, a game, and should 
be put into proper perspective as a very, very small component of the 
bigger picture of the life of any of its participants, and the world 
as a whole.

Finally (this is probably the most important point I have to make), 
as much as I respect you for your honesty and candor, and for raising 
the level of discourse on the message board, if only for the time 
being, I whish you had signed your post.  It is very difficult to 
take anyone seriously who does not find it necessary to sign their 
name to their work.

-J. D. Hutchinson,
University of Florida

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0: Sat 12 Feb 2022 12:30:46 AM EST EST