I agree broadly with c_diddy666's analysis in 11017, and I also raise an eyebrow at qb_hmm's use of the term "minorities". In 10999, qb_hmm writes: "This latest attempt to exoticize the cultural Other, specifically Asians, belies a long-running, deeply insidious project to rob minorities of their identities and deny them access to the knowledge techno-structure that has historically been the privileged purview of white males." Nobody who gave these charges any serious support would use the term "minorities" to refer to "specifically Asians". Last time I checked, the majority of people today are Asians. And then there's the bit about "today's context of an interdependent, globalized information economy" (supposed to be a good thing) followed by a complaint of NAQT being "anti-American" (supposed to be very bad). Again, nobody with the supposed sympathies of the writer would use the terms in those ways, especially not together. But perhaps the inconsistency was the satirist's point. A funnier example, because the parody is probably unintended, is in the Michigan Memorandum 2002 Appendix, at http://www.umich.edu/~uac/mac/rules/appendix2002.html "Of your sixty questions, at least 10 must cover underrepresented topics. These questions may be about women or people of color, but may also be about social movements, non-western literature, history, culture or thought and any other topic which, despite being the subject of serious academic study, are not asked about with an appropriate frequency in quiz bowl. While the subjects of these questions may not frequently be asked about, this in no way indicates that they are in any sense obscure to a well-educated person; accordingly, these subjects should not be considered obscure by quiz bowl players." Although I *think* these "underrepresented topics" are ones that I would actually *like* to hear more questions about at quiz bowl tournaments, this wording is really condescending. First, the use of the word "underrepresented" suggests that there is some canonical ideal distribution of topics against which any particular packet can be said to have some of the topics "overrepresented" or "underrepresented". If you want people to send you questions about X and Y and not so much about Z, then tell them you want n questions about X and Y and no more than m questions about Z. It's certainly a good idea to point out that this distribution differs from other tournaments' because of a strong preference to have more questions than usual about certain topics, but there's no need for insults like "these subjects should not be considered obscure by quiz bowl players." Secondly, the vagueness of the language suggests that the writer of the paragraph is more interested in presenting an image than with achieving results. One should write about "any" topics "which, despite being the subject of serious academic study, are not asked about with an appropriate frequency in quiz bowl"? This does not help someone who has not heard much quiz bowl with "inappropriate" frequencies. Isn't it more effective to tell people the appropriate frequencies for the tournament? How about a reading list? (Seriously.) Finally, the use of a shibboleth like "people of color" is not helpful either. I think this expression means people of non-European ancestry, but if it were that simple, I can't think of a good reason why the document doesn't say that, unless it were thought to be too clear. In fairness, the rest of the Michigan Memorandum does give some guidelines under major categories of what I think the writers would call "underrepresented" -- one or two questions on literature of Asia, Latin America, Africa, and the Middle East; at least two questions on non-Western religious/mythological/philosophical traditions, etc. -- but the numbers add up to far less than 10.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0: Sat 12 Feb 2022 12:30:46 AM EST EST