Redskins
- Thread starter The 5 solas
- Start date
Yes, I get your argument. By that measure, the Yankees need to change their name, right?
I'm not calling for a ban on any word...I'm talking to individuals about individual conduct and applying that to the larger discussion. I don't have qualms with anyone not taking offense, especially Native Americans. I grew up with the Redskins and without thinking of it in an offensive manner...I have qualms with people saying one thing and acting as though they don't particularly mean it.
If I used Yankee routinely and meant it as an affectionate or at least friendly notice and I knew that use upset you I'd stop calling you by it. What's the cost to me? I can see the gain clearly enough.
genuineoriginal
New member
The word had become completely inoffensive, not only that, it had become a name of pride for the players and fans of the football team.
But now and forevermore it will be used against whiny morons with American Indian heritage as a slur, since that is what they have insisted is the only way anyone is allowed to use the word.
I see you have not invested any money or pride into the name Yankee.
That is completely different than the football team and fans that have invested 80 years of money and pride into the name of Redskins.
No, that's just not true. The legal action on this has been going on and people have objected to it for decades. It was inoffensive to most, but never to all and the number of offended has grown.
By association, maybe. I didn't think about Native Americans when I saw the Redskins take the field. I don't think about a Crimson Tide when I cheer on the University of Alabama.
The ruling on the patent considered a wealth of historical information on the term and concluded that in the decades long period of consideration those offended had a point. Reducing them to whiny morons is as unfair an needlessly offensive as someone offended calling those who share your opinion closet racists. Neither approach is reasonable.
And no one is being barred from using the word, not even the Washington team.
I'm Southern. It's not a word that carried well here until fairly recently. But I grew up proud of Southern heritage. I gave up the flags of the Confederacy when I realized what they meant to black people. That I didn't mean to use them to offend wasn't really the point.
I understand the nostalgic connection with people who never thought of the term as an insult and may feel aggrieved at the thought of it being put in the dust bin of history, franchise wise. I'm not unsympathetic to the loss. But the team isn't going anywhere and if you love or follow that team a name change isn't going to erase that sentiment or connection. And if you're more invested in that term than you are in who is reasonably offended by it, your intent notwithstanding, then you aren't someone I was speaking to, again.
How many Christians were offended when they immersed a crucifix in a jar of urine and called it "art"? I would bet millions were. Where was TH the "Christian" back then?
drbrumley
Well-known member
I remember that vile work....I would bet all christians were offended at that, more so than a dozen indians over the term redskins
Can you quote me asking for a ban? I'm saying Yankees and Redskins are the same in that they are offensive. If you call for the Redskins to stop using their name, you must treat the Yankees the same way.
That's easy to say when you haven't invested in it. But you need to advocate that those that did invest in the name change it just like you are doing with the Redskins.
the really interesting part of that (it was called Pi** Christ, iirc) was that it was funded, at least partially, with taxpayer dollars
and i don't remember town making a peep about it :idunno:
i'm offended that you're proud of a heritage built largely upon the brutal oppression of negroes
and i demand that you stop
drbrumley
Well-known member
and i demand that town stop brum from being so mean to me :baby:
My apologies. My point is that I wasn't calling for anyone to change anything unless the change would be in keeping with their declared intent.
I'd say they aren't really, historically and that names aimed at the majority can never be particularly empowered. I've never heard of people insulted by the term. And I've heard Americans generally called by the term when I was overseas. So which Yankee? The one the Brit used on me? :chuckle: Hard to see it, but you're free to attempt the case, take a poll, set out the history within the culture (which I think will likely sink you) and take your shot at convincing.
To match you, quote me doing that. Maybe I did, but I don't remember doing it. I have called for people who claim not to have meant offense, recognizing that one in ten of the people they address are offended by their word choice to stop doing that.
It's easy to say when principle is more important too. I did give another example and one that I was invested in, at least in my wide eyed youth. It was to gen though and you may have missed it:
I thought and said it was an odious, offensive and unconscionable pretense wrapped in the protective cocoon of art. You shouldn't let that personal animosity of yours lead you by the nose, especially in matters relating to faith....or how different are you from the fellow you're protesting when he attacks your "church".
and did you support the call for legal intervention to stop it?
drbrumley
Well-known member
I am exiting the thread. I think it has run its course.
it is worth noting that this thread has gone 797 posts without a single mention of homosexuality 
:doh:
So it is the quantity of "bad" connected with the pejorative, and the number of people who could sign up for the case. Oh... and your personal view of the word.
Please give us the amount of "bad" the word must reach and the number of people
Um... the rest of your quote is you quoting it again:
And so you would support a court order calling for everyone to give up the confederate flag? If not, then it isn't the same.
That's never been remotely my point. In fact, I've literally said that the only reason I noted the number bit at all was to counter the at best mistaken notion some advanced that this was a liberal white problem invented for political reasons.
What I have said and what my standard consistently has been is this: if you say you mean no offense in using a particular term and find that your usage is, in fact, offending you should stop using it.
No, it isn't. It's a rephrase of the principle I set out above. I'm asking for people to honor their own word on the point. I don't know that the Washington owner really cares if he offends or not. He doesn't seem to. If not he shouldn't. And people are free to respond to who and how he is on the point.
You're mistaken in your premise, given there's no court order calling for Washington to call itself anything else. They simply can't own and profit singularly by it. And I've never called for outlawing a term.