[Bell Historians] chiming

[Carl S Zimmerman]

Yes, as originally chosen, the actual numbers used reflected the valuation of the day.  Does it necessarily follow that using the same numbers today constitutes an endorsement of that ancient valuation, and therefore "discrimination"?  On that grounds, to ring two for a man and three for a woman would be just as "discriminatory".

I ask again, what prejudice (pre-judgment based on irrelevant characteristics) is occurring when a funeral tolling method communicates the gender of the deceased?

Carl
(writing from Koblenz on the Rhine)
P.S.  Apologies for inadvertent duplication of messages in previous replies to this list.

_____
John Camp <camp at ZplgXFOIEg87922RyFJOH61-7OcWxG_GrzwC9HdwSyZB2MCC5Ifl6RcXJHAE5f1015X3v9J9pULssFrjDN-0.yahoo.invalid> wrote: At 20:35 on 22 July 2008, Carl S Zimmerman wrote:
> How does recognizing the existence of a very real difference
> constitute prejudice?  There is no judgment being passed on the basis
> of that difference, but rather a potentially useful bit of information.

Are you really saying that three blows for a man, two for a woman, and
one for a child didn't originally represent a valuation of their
respective status in the human hierarchy ?

I agree that we can get too serious about this and that traditions
should not be lightly abandoned, but we must also be aware of how and
why those traditions originated.  Yes - information was communicated,
but it was in a form which quite clearly valued women less than men.

Would three for a white man and two for a black man be OK?  That would also convey information.
_____
           
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ringingworld.co.uk/pipermail/bell-historians/attachments/20080722/5b3c0162/attachment.html>