Actually, I was thinking more along the lines of a Thanksgiving Day uncle.
Seriously, not sure about, "Whether a person rises or falls in my opinion
of them as an individual depends *entirely* [emphasis added] on their
actions, not in their prejudices or lack thereof." So if a colleague pulls
you aside at an ARSC conference, and in the course of your conversation
tells you how intensely he hates Jewish people (and probably expresses that
in quite a repugnant way) it's just his prejudice, not an action, your
opinion doesn't seriously decline regarding him? Hey, it's just his
prejudice. Now if he destroys an old Klezmer recording, well now that's an
entirely different matter.
Are you really saying such prejudice doesn't cause your opinion of a person
to change? It certainly changed my ill-informed opinion of the person whose
letter was published in our recent bulletin.
I managed a newsroom covering the Aryan nation people then living in North
Idaho. We wore bullet-proof vests on scene for their Independence Day fest
in beautiful downtown Coeur d'Alene. All those ugly words, but then we had
enough sense (and fear) to understand the actions that so often follow such
bile. Words count. I hope you understand them as actions too. And in regard
to prejudice, none of us fall into your category of, "or lack thereof."
On Mon, Jul 20, 2020 at 12:52 AM Malcolm <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> God’s hooks!
> I was puzzled when the statements that Kurt just replied to appeared in
> my email awhile back. Puzzled, somewhat disturbed, and a bit
> apprehensive, I decided to wait and see what developed.
> I have just received the Summer 2020 issue of the ARSC Newsletter with
> Kurt’s letter in it. I have just read that but have still not gotten to
> the rest of the newsletter. Judging by the member response onlist so far
> there are/were more than a few of us awaiting said developments.
> Thanks for breaching the dam, Kurt. I may or may not agree with your
> ideas but I’m glad you voiced them.
> Bottom line? I feel that delineating the obvious and making it policy
> may be a step in the wrong direction. In my experience we ARSC members
> are not a bigoted lot. Or a sexist lot. Or an anything else lot except a
> lot of record collectors, engineers, discographers, historians, etc.,
> all of whom have sometimes wide differences but all of which have one
> thing in common. Music and recorded media. All the rest of the hoo-rah
> is unnecessary.
> Who is ARSC attempting to impress? Are we going to suffer a declining
> membership - which has been suggested - because we have no written
> policy on such matters? Is an attempt to be politically correct in print
> going to win the hearts of those out there who are not ARSC members and
> gather them into the fold? I think not. What we do we may consider as
> enlightened self-interest and requires no further justification.
> You may think of me as a dotty uncle, an in-law or whatever you choose.
> That’s okay with me. But I cannot help but note that there are a whole
> batch of others like me in ARSC. I celebrate our diversity. Whether a
> person rises or falls in my opinion of them as an individual depends
> entirely on their actions, not in their prejudices or lack thereof.
> In my not-so humble opinion ARSC putting this line of thinking on paper
> and making it part of our /raison d’etre/ is absolutely unnecessary.
> That’s it from me.
> Now back to our regularly scheduled programming. Chet?
> Malcolm Rockwell
> On 7/19/2020 2:24 PM, Corey Bailey wrote:
> > Hi All,
> > In the last newsletter, there was an open letter to the ARSC
> > membership titled "Letters to the Editor" by Kurt Nauck.
> > Anyone care to comment on that letter?
> > ~CB
> > Corey Bailey Audio Engineering
> > www.baileyzone.net