Seriously? The first time I encountered the phrase was at a picnic while talking with an Eskimo tribal administrator and a physics professor from Khalilabad. For the life of me, I can't remember which one used it first.
I was under the impression that it was an acceptable short-hand for distinguishing which culture/ethnicity is being referenced when either is equally likely. Do the PC-police now disagree?
[obligatory] It is inappropriate and morally reprehensible. [/obligatory]
Can you not look at nuclear reactions and separate that they are used to make a nuclear bomb?
It was a succinct phrase. It is visually and connotatively arresting. As is evinced by the amount of ire it has provoked.
As a side note, I still read the phrase 'wild Indians' with an image of children misbehaving, especially as it is paralleled later by Barbarians, a generic term for uncivilized behavior. So to me the phrase 'feather not dot' was a preemptive defense against moral grandstanding; what's more, to me it conjured up (in just three words) the very history of the name 'indian' (which when googled on my browser, despite having no interest in baseball, only returns the Cleveland team) - a name misapplied by foreigners.
Now, reading the poster's later defenses[1], I can see that he in fact had no such thoughts when using it...but I am a relativist when it comes to art and believe the perception of the audience supersedes the intent of the artist, and so for me, the phrase still stands as evocative without being ugly.
I'm referring more to the "like wild Indians" comment, which is qualified by a cute remark intended to clarify exactly which culture is supposed to be offended there. I'm not being PC.
I was under the impression that it was an acceptable short-hand for distinguishing which culture/ethnicity is being referenced when either is equally likely. Do the PC-police now disagree?
It's (basically) acceptable, but most likely not if used by you. It's not that sensitivities to the phrase have changed; it's that you're not a "safe" speaker in this regard.
To briefly recap the positive aspect of "PC" norms: speech which disparages or generalizes about racial/sex groups communicates to others a willingness to disrespect the members of those groups categorically. This creates a sense of acceptability[1] for outright oppression. Oppression continues to happen, routinely, though generally it is secret.
Compare PC-norms to the Byzantine Generals' Problem[2]: racial minorities and those who seek racial harmony are in the middle. The attacking generals are attempting to coordinate with each other to attack the harmonists. But if the generals are inhibited from coordinating attacks using public speech forums, the harmonists stand a better chance of success. So even "coded" or minor messages should be stamped out, because they are the foundation of coordination.
Now, if you're a member of the minority in question, your use of offensive generalizations does not usually suggest an attack, which potentially changes the acceptability and meaning[3]. "Feather-not-dot" is a particularly interesting example, since it symmetrically stereotypes two groups. I've heard it many times and it generally gives me pause. When spoken by a Native American or East Indian, it's generally fine, but really only when a high level of mutual regard is quite clear.
Really? It was an inappropriate remark, I was surprised to read it and even more surprised to see it lauded by someone else.