Redskins

[Town Heretic]

Your repeated answer: "You should read the court holding and the evidence that convinced it on the point, but if we reserve the right to dismiss the offense we offer as unreasonable then our declarations about not meaning to offend become something less than honest."

Sort of right. I have two different points. The first is that you can't have an informed opinion without being informed. The second remains the actual argument about intent and action.

Or, if you don't want to offend people and find out you are you either have to change your tactic or your mind on whether you care if you offend.

Then my point stands as a yet unanswered rebuttal. Discerning which offenses are real or not shows a greater respect for real offenses.

I don't know that I agree or disagree with that. I can see the point, but it feels more like a marriage of convenience than principle. In any event it doesn't touch my noting that discernment without information isn't much more than leaning on inclination and bias.

Thus:...is something you cannot rationally determine.

It's unlikely that ten percent of a population given good historical reason to object to a thing as offensive and finding it so are all being dishonest. I'm applying Occam and giving at least the core of both the offended and "didn't mean to" credit for honesty. It's less reasonable not to.

I've considered the evidence.

Did you look through the evidence considered by the court in its holding?

Here's a link to the holding itself. I don't think anyone has posted it prior.

The expert testimonial consideration begins around page 24.

This wasn't rushed litigation. It took several years during which motions and evidence were presented and argued.

The conclusion of the court is wrong. In fact, they should have questioned the reasonableness of the claim the moment it was compared to the n-word.

I thought the "darky" bit was a good bit of cross examination on the point. Both darky and redskin focus on skin tone. So doing that isn't inherently without implication of the negative sort.

Could you cite the page for the n-word comparison. It's not coming to mind.

"Nearly half of all interracial slurs ...refer to real or imagined physical differences. ... Most references to physical differences are to skin color" Unkind Words: Ethnic Labeling from Redskin to WASP (Bergin & Garvey 1990)​

Another historical bit...

"If Mr. Liles went back in history to when the 13 colonies were being
organized, he would have seen that “redskin” was not used to convey
respect, adulation or honor.97

A man who resigned from the Pulaski County sheriff’s office because of
alleged harassment as an American Indian has won $24,727 in a race
discrimination lawsuit. . . . He said he was called “chief,” “Indian Joe”
and “redskin.”98"​

A lot of interesting and historic testimony was set out.

The reason teams, even black colleges, won't call themselves the n-word explains the simple difference between the terms.

Yet many blacks routinely use the word among themselves. The distinction is found often enough when someone outside of the race uses the term. As per my last link, Native Americans, in the majority, don't care for those outside of their group to use it with them. So who uses a term can greatly impact how the term is both meant and taken.

What's the difference? The n-word would be offensive because of its modern definition as dictated by people of African descent. People like Jesse Jackson and a lot of bureaucrats ended up not only gaining power but money off that word in part, but almost all the rest of the people of African descent are hurt by its status.

And as with Native Americans (hereafter NAs) there are objections by some, loudly, to use even within the group and those who defend it.

This current crop of Indians offended by Redskins could create the same kind of definition. But wiser Indians see how this would do no good for almost all Native Americans; to change the word Redskins into another n-word.

Did you just say, in essence, the good Indians know how to take it? lain:

I'll answer you with the court holding, in part:

Respondent has introduced evidence that some in the Native American
community do not find the term “Redskin” disparaging when it is used in connection
with professional football. While this may reveal differing opinions within the
community, it does not negate the opinions of those who find it disparaging.​

But the gain for few Indians and many bureaucrats is overpowering and it will probably happen anyway (and you helped!).

Rather, the gain is to all of those who mean to relate and live together without offering a needless offense and a trivial stereotyping of NAs as a nomadic and relatively primitive group long gone by the wayside, to the extent those partially ethnocentric notions could be objectively applied.

Please note, even you can and do still type the word "Redskins" without hesitation but you can't do that with the n word.

If there was an innocuous and easily recognized way around it I wouldn't and I mostly haven't.

I'll give it a try, but the only Indians I know are friends and we already call each other redskin and paleface. I can't do the n word even with my black friends. Know why that is?

I do. It's a much sorer subject more uniformly with blacks than the current consideration is among most NAs. Which has nothing to do with my argument or point.

Because they cannot hear that word without the requirement of a negative reaction. That's the position you want to force Indians into.

Nope. I haven't tried to force anyone into anything they haven't declared their desire for, which is an accord between word and deed.

It's not nice and it's the reason that I objectively care more about avoiding offense than you.

Just more declaration without legs.

And as I just demonstrated, I care more about avoiding offending than you.

That would be funny if it weren't so sad and willful.

To everyone else. If you don't mean to offend and find yourself doing that very thing, instead of blaming the offended or the fellow who nudges you with his elbow, gently...try changing your practice or your rhetoric. One of them has to go.

 

[Frank Ernest]

They have "Redskins" written on them? Turn of the century bit, wasn't it? When did they stop making those anyway?

No, just had the image of an Indian, but it does look eerily similar to the Redskins image. Early to mid 20th century. I believe the government stopped minting them about World War II.

The last one I saw was on an Indian reservation General Store.

Yes, who can forget the hoards of Native Americans descending upon innocent invade...I mean settlers, forcing the poor, half starved Europeans to smoke their demonic weed. Insisting...somehow, that they carry that back to spread across their homeland.

Nice try at politically-correct sarcasm! Try throwing a fact or two into it.

It's not a blanket filled with disease, but it's still paying dividends. lain:

:darwinsm: Ah, yes, the smallpox-infested blanket story. Originated in the great Pacific Northwest where I was born and raised. Debunked in the early 1950s. Like I said, try visiting a fact or two on occasion. Better yet, read the history as written by the Indians.

 

[moparguy]

You should try to read the court's opinion on the historical usage relating to the patent, then check out my link to a fairly recent study clarifying how those Native Americans mostly feel about non Native Americans using the term.

Or you could just find the first example of a group that uses it among themselves without offense and generalize from there. But gee, golly that would be seriously flawed as approaches go, wouldn't it.

.. and even if I gave you this whole position, gratis, it would still only mean that the court decided to break contract-law and private property rights ... over what's viewed to be an insult.

Yes, that's a great precedent to set and use, everywhere else it would apply.

"your neighbor can steal everything you own because you said something derogatory about him."

 

[Town Heretic]

.. and even if I gave you this whole position, gratis, it would still only mean that the court decided to break contract-law and private property rights ... over what's viewed to be an insult.

How do you figure they did that?

Yes, that's a great precedent to set and use, everywhere else it would apply.

"your neighbor can steal everything you own because you said something derogatory about him."

How much do you know about patent law?

 

[resurrected]

:darwinsm: Ah, yes, the smallpox-infested blanket story. Originated in the great Pacific Northwest where I was born and raised. Debunked in the early 1950s. Like I said, try visiting a fact or two on occasion. Better yet, read the history as written by the Indians.

Indians in the area did indeed contract smallpox. Some historians have noted that it is impossible to verify how many people (if any) contracted the disease as a result of the Fort Pitt incident; the disease was already in the area and had reached the Indians through other vectors. However, many historians and scholars stated that smallpox and other disease were so very widespread that none of the Native Americans were even prepared for. Indeed, even before the blankets had been handed over, the disease may have been spread to the Indians by native warriors returning from attacks on infected white settlements.

 

[Town Heretic]

No, just had the image of an Indian, but it does look eerily similar to the Redskins image. Early to mid 20th century. I believe the government stopped minting them about World War II.

The last one I saw was on an Indian reservation General Store.

It's just another glowing example of reducing a people to a bit of commerce. Nothing says honor and respect quite like using a vanquished enemy to hawk goods.

Nice try at politically-correct sarcasm! Try throwing a fact or two into it.

PC isn't a real standard, you know. It's still only the subjective cry of people to justify behavior that wouldn't be otherwise and deride good manners by attempting to invest the appearance of public virtue in being rude.

:darwinsm: Ah, yes, the smallpox-infested blanket story.

Parallel, but mostly a notice that this sort of thing is goofy. You were actually trying to work some sort of "they gave us cancer" bit in, after all.

That said, this from Colonial Williamsburg site:

The Fort Pitt incident is the best documented case of deliberately spreading smallpox among unsuspecting populations, but it likely was not the first time such a stratagem was employed by military forces. It appears that Ecuyer and Amherst proposed the same idea independently at about the same time, suggesting that the practice was not unusual.​

Here's a link to the article.

Ah, yes, the smallpox-infested blanket story. Originated in the great Pacific Northwest...

When did they move Pennsylvania? lain:

Like I said, try visiting a fact or two on occasion.

Said the guy who came to a conclusion without reading the actual case holding. Else, supra.

Better yet, read the history as written by the Indians.

Try giving that study a look and see what the majority of Native Americans think about the current use of their name and likeness for fun and profit by those outside of their group.

 

[Yorzhik]

Sort of right. I have two different points. The first is that you can't have an informed opinion without being informed. The second remains the actual argument about intent and action.

I have an informed opinion, looking up the source material when I got into this thread.

Or, if you don't want to offend people and find out you are you either have to change your tactic or your mind on whether you care if you offend.

Or, if the offense is a tactic to gain power/money for race baiters similar to Jesse Jackson... or is that not possible?

I don't know that I agree or disagree with that. I can see the point, but it feels more like a marriage of convenience than principle. In any event it doesn't touch my noting that discernment without information isn't much more than leaning on inclination and bias.

And, because I understand all the relevant information, my argument relies little on inclination and bias.

It's unlikely that ten percent of a population given good historical reason to object to a thing as offensive and finding it so are all being dishonest.

And here you expose yourself as someone that isn't taking in all the relevant information. In this case the simple acknowledgement and reason why they do in the last two posts I've made.

Did you look through the evidence considered by the court in its holding?

Here's a link to the holding itself. I don't think anyone has posted it prior.

Of course, long before you posted it.

Could you cite the page for the n-word comparison. It's not coming to mind.

The first mention is page 14.

"Nearly half of all interracial slurs ...refer to real or imagined physical differences. ... Most references to physical differences are to skin color" Unkind Words: Ethnic Labeling from Redskin to Yankee (Bergin & Garvey 1990)​

Another historical bit...

If Mr. Liles went back in history to when the 13 colonies were being organized, he would have seen that “Yankee” was not used to convey respect, adulation or honor.97​

Fits perfectly.

Yet many blacks routinely use the word among themselves. The distinction is found often enough when someone outside of the race uses the term. As per my last link, Native Americans, in the majority, don't care for those outside of their group to use it with them. So who uses a term can greatly impact how the term is both meant and taken.

And the n word is a great benefit to race baiters and bureaucrats. But it only serves to cause tension between races otherwise, thus hurting the vast majority of blacks.

Indians should not fall into this trap.

Did you just say, in essence, the good Indians know how to take it? lain:

The wise Indians know the train-wreck of relations creating a new n word would be.

I'll answer you with the court holding, in part:

Respondent has introduced evidence that some in the Native American community do not find the term “Redskin” disparaging when it is used in connection with professional football. While this may reveal differing opinions within the community, it does not negate the opinions of those who find it disparaging.​

In that case I guess you don't consider the person you are conversing with to be part of the relevant information in said conversation.

This obvious flaw in the courts holding as mentioned here has been repeated in this thread repeatedly and over and over again redundantly.

Rather, the gain is to all of those who mean to relate and live together without offering a needless offense and a trivial stereotyping of NAs as a nomadic and relatively primitive group long gone by the wayside, to the extent those partially ethnocentric notions could be objectively applied.

If this were true, then the status of the n word would offer "the gain is to all of those who mean to relate and live together without offering a needless offense and a trivial stereotyping."

If there was an innocuous and easily recognized way around it I wouldn't and I mostly haven't.

You could easily have been saying "r word." But you haven't because even you don't see it in the same light as the n word... yet. Don't worry, if the race baiters and bureaucrats get their wish you will never type the r word again in mixed company.

I do. It's a much sorer subject more uniformly with blacks than the current consideration is among most NAs. Which has nothing to do with my argument or point.

And it's only much sorer because they aggravate the open wound through race baiting.

Nope. I haven't tried to force anyone into anything they haven't declared their desire for, which is an accord between word and deed.

Yes, you are forcing the wise Indians that treated the r word with ambivalence into a race war.

Just more declaration without legs.

That would be funny if it weren't so sad and willful.

Only if you ignore the relevant information I've provided.

Only if you think the n word being raised to something unmentionable has fostered gain to all of those who mean to relate and live together without offering a needless offense and a trivial stereotyping.

To everyone else. If you don't mean to offend and find yourself doing that very thing, instead of blaming the offended or the fellow who nudges you with his elbow, gently...try changing your practice or your rhetoric. One of them has to go.

Or, stop supporting a race war like TH.

 

[Town Heretic]

Hiya shadow. What took you so long? Still can't see you...and before you do one of your old "that's not how you ignore" in response to this, I'd remind you of your practice on the point back when I could still read you, from Observations after one of your ignore attempts:

Originally Posted by resurrected
It's amazed me to see how many of the threads have gotten much shorter with him on ignore :chuckle:

And

Originally Posted by resurrected View Post
ahhhh - bliss

Can't link to them while you're on ignore, but they can be found, with links, on the last page of the old Observations thread.

Carry on. :e4e: (like you could stop)

 

[resurrected]

town, determined to pretend he has me on ignore but driven by his ocd to respond in some manner, attempts a confused "i have you on ignore and i'm not really responding to you with this post to you where i talk about you and to you":

Hiya shadow. What took you so long? Still can't see you...

:darwinsm:


:mock:town

 

[Town Heretic]

I have an informed opinion, looking up the source material when I got into this thread.

You did? I thought you said you hadn't read the holding earlier.

Or, if the offense is a tactic to gain power/money for race baiters similar to Jesse Jackson... or is that not possible?

I've seen plenty of race baiters on either side of the political aisles, but they aren't the issue here, only another side bar.

...here you expose yourself as someone that isn't taking in all the relevant information. In this case the simple acknowledgement and reason why they do in the last two posts I've made.

I've by and large taken you point to point, so you'll have to spell out a more particular objection.

Of course, long before you posted it.

The first mention is page 14.

Thanks. I thought you were talking about the court relying on it in their holding, not referencing it in testimony.

Fits perfectly.

A case you'll have to make using actual documents and evidence when you make that thread in support of your Yankees petition.

And the n word is a great benefit to race baiters and bureaucrats.

I'd imagine. It's also a historically offensive name that reasonably offends a great many black people.

But it only serves to cause tension between races otherwise, thus hurting the vast majority of blacks.

Indians should not fall into this trap.

The problem isn't with Native Americans, but mostly with Caucasians who want to use either term. NAs respond very differently to using it among themselves, though there's still a divide.

The wise Indians know the train-wreck of relations creating a new n word would be.

Except it isn't new as insults go. Which you should know if you've read beyond those first 14 pages of the court holding, to say nothing of additional reading and research on the topic.

...This obvious flaw in the courts holding as mentioned here has been repeated in this thread repeatedly and over and over again redundantly.

That's close to a point. Now all you need is an exact complaint and corroboration.

If this were true, then the status of the n word would offer "the gain is to all of those who mean to relate and live together without offering a needless offense and a trivial stereotyping."

Something in that sentence is off to the point where I don't see what you're aiming at. I'd make a similar objection at a patent hearing for the New York N-bombs (I don't think the harder term will actually print here).

...you are forcing the wise Indians that treated the r word with ambivalence into a race war.

Because everyone knows that when you deny a rich white guy the right to singularly profit from a historically disparaging term that's what you invite, a race war.

Only if you ignore the relevant information I've provided.

I've noted your position. Most of it has been side bar and I've spoken to that as well.

Only if you think the n word being raised to something unmentionable has fostered gain to all of those who mean to relate and live together without offering a needless offense and a trivial stereotyping.

Rather, the n word was something vile and established by racists who, doubtless, felt justified in their determination blacks were less human and could be treated, traded and thought of in those terms. I think recognizing that is empowering to minorities and has a way of putting the user in strong relief. The Klan isn't really the animal it was during the not so recent past, by way of.

Or, stop supporting a race war like TH.

Because that's what good manners reduce to with some people... lain:

resurrected
This message is hidden because resurrected is on your ignore list.

Nope. Still nothing (either). But I see you're following me around again. Who'd have thought it. Like waking up and finding the sun has risen.

 

[moparguy]

How do you figure they did that?

The team symbols and such are their property and they can't contract with suppliers now w/o the possibility of said suppliers breaking contract with impunity to profit from the redskins properties. They are no longer allowed recourse.

How much do you know about patent law?

I know enough that when a court says you can't defend your patent ... than you can't defend your patent. Meaning anybody can use your patented property in ways you don't wish it to be used.

 

[Town Heretic]

The team symbols and such are their property

A patent isn't like property, but more like a license for use subject to failure, which is why they can be challenged and fail as an operation of time.

and they can't contract with suppliers now w/o the possibility of said suppliers breaking contract with impunity to profit from the redskins properties. They are no longer allowed recourse.

No, whatever contract they enter into is as binding as it ever was. The problem is now that distributors don't need their permission to create and distribute, except in the Washington venue itself, of course.

I know enough that when a court says you can't defend your patent ... than you can't defend your patent. Meaning anybody can use your patented property in ways you don't wish it to be used.

Except they don't own the patent to defend or cede permission for use.

 

[resurrected]

hey rez! i have you on ignore! i'm ignoring you! see how much i'm ignoring you?

:darwinsm:

 

[Frank Ernest]

It's just another glowing example of reducing a people to a bit of commerce. Nothing says honor and respect quite like using a vanquished enemy to hawk goods.

:darwinsm: I regard that as similar to making an argument that KFC advertising demeans chickens, or that White Castle is trying to attract racist elitists (or chess players).

PC isn't a real standard, you know. It's still only the subjective cry of people to justify behavior that wouldn't be otherwise and deride good manners by attempting to invest the appearance of public virtue in being rude.

Really? I believe you're attempting to argue both sides of the case, counselor.

Parallel, but mostly a notice that this sort of thing is goofy. You were actually trying to work some sort of "they gave us cancer" bit in, after all.

Now you're devolving into some defense of middle-of-the-road mushy PC. Indians - tobacco - white foreigners - lung cancer. Seems clear to me and the "studies" support it. :chuckle:

That said, this from Colonial Williamsburg site:

The Fort Pitt incident is the best documented case of deliberately spreading smallpox among unsuspecting populations, but it likely was not the first time such a stratagem was employed by military forces. It appears that Ecuyer and Amherst proposed the same idea independently at about the same time, suggesting that the practice was not unusual.​

Here's a link to the article.

:darwinsm: Proposal of an idea is akin to suggesting it was common practice? My, my! An "official" try at stretching one's credulity beyond the limits of same? "Likely ... not the first time ...", etc.? In other words they don't know. You really must learn some critical reading skills in light of all the revisionist history of late. It seems this "best documented case" is nothing more than a wild guess. (I'll be generous. My first thought was "outright lie.")

Said the guy who came to a conclusion without reading the actual case holding. Else, supra.

Says the guy who thinks a case holding is the sine qua non of fact.

Try giving that study a look and see what the majority of Native Americans think about the current use of their name and likeness for fun and profit by those outside of their group.

It's amazing how many "studies" magically appear to prove almost anything one wants, especially where politics are concerned. "Outside of their group?" You mean it's ok to exploit the Indian image for "fun and profit" within the "group?"

I believe I'm sensing a tinge of racism here. (If one is a Jesse Jackson fan, the current version is "racialism.")

 

[Town Heretic]

:darwinsm: I regard that as similar to making an argument that KFC advertising demeans chickens,

Comparing the use of human beings to animals isn't exactly helping you.

or that White Castle is trying to attract racist elitists (or chess players).

Must be a regional thing. We don't have those here. Krystal is our close cousin.

Really? I believe you're attempting to argue both sides of the case, counselor.

You believe all sorts of things, Frank. But I'm not.

Now you're devolving into some defense of middle-of-the-road mushy PC. Indians - tobacco - white foreigners - lung cancer. Seems clear to me and the "studies" support it. :chuckle:

My argument and approach really hasn't changed. The PC bit is still magic speak and my bit on the points was responsive.

:darwinsm: Proposal of an idea is akin to suggesting it was common practice?

I didn't say anything like that. Now you, on the other hand, decided it never happened and you were and are wrong, again.

My, my! An "official" try at stretching one's credulity beyond the limits of same? "Likely ... not the first time ...", etc.? In other words they don't know. You really must learn some critical reading skills in light of all the revisionist history of late. It seems this "best documented case" is nothing more than a wild guess. (I'll be generous. My first thought was "outright lie.")

You continue to compound the first dismissive mistake. The case is established and it is the "best" example of it. The informed speculation regards prior use of the tactic.

Says the guy who thinks a case holding is the sine qua non of fact.

Rather, says the fellow who notes the case holding contains a wealth of considered information going directly to the point and the court's reasoning in denying the patent.

It's amazing how many "studies" magically appear to prove almost anything one wants,

Actually, all the research here did was pull together a lot of existing information upon which an informed opinion could be founded. As for studies. You think Pew and Gallop conduct magic? lain:

especially where politics are concerned. "Outside of their group?" You mean it's ok to exploit the Indian image for "fun and profit" within the "group?"

I mean that Native Americans, in the pronounced majority, don't like it when people outside of their group use that name.

I believe I'm sensing a tinge of racism here.

There's nothing racist about finding a term that is historically offensive when used by the dominant majority outside of your group offensive.

 

[Frank Ernest]

Comparing the use of human beings to animals isn't exactly helping you.

:darwinsm: Your ability to tap-dance is amazing.

Must be a regional thing. We don't have those here. Krystal is our close cousin.

Obviously a reference to "Krystalnacht." (I always suspected some anti-Semitism.)

You believe all sorts of things, Frank. But I'm not.

I've encountered denial before.

My argument and approach really hasn't changed. The PC bit is still magic speak and my bit on the points was responsive.

Evasive at best.

I didn't say anything like that. Now you, on the other hand, decided it never happened and you were and are wrong, again.

Denial again.

You continue to compound the first dismissive mistake. The case is established and it is the "best" example of it. The informed speculation regards prior use of the tactic.

Informed speculation = It's true because You believe it.

Rather, says the fellow who notes the case holding contains a wealth of considered information going directly to the point and the court's reasoning in denying the patent.

Wealth of considered information = Made-up charges leading to foregone conclusion.

Actually, all the research here did was pull together a lot of existing information upon which an informed opinion could be founded. As for studies.

Supra.

You think Pew and Gallop conduct magic? lain:

At times, yes.

I mean that Native Americans, in the pronounced majority, don't like it when people outside of their group use that name.

Silly them. I bet that, prior to the manufactured PC issue, they thought it referred to a football team.

There's nothing racist about finding a term that is historically offensive when used by the dominant majority outside of your group offensive.

When one's "group" identifies itself as racially pure, it is.

 

[resurrected]

the ottawa skyhawks b-ball team has been in the news lately, which reminded me that they were originally called the ottawa tomahawks before a single complaint of "racial insensitivity" caused them to change the name :doh:

i always thought they should have responded with "the ottawa flintlocks" or "the ottawa superior european invaders" or the ottawa "you lost four hundred years ago - when do you plan to stop whining?"


those last two would be hard to fit on a team jersey

 

[Yorzhik]

You did? I thought you said you hadn't read the holding earlier.

I read it after posting a few times in this thread (post# 346 if you care to know when that started)

I've seen plenty of race baiters on either side of the political aisles, but they aren't the issue here, only another side bar.

They are exactly the issue. If it was not for their gain, the issue wouldn't have gone anywhere.

A case you'll have to make using actual documents and evidence when you make that thread in support of your Yankees petition.

World English Dictionary
Yankee or ( informal ) Yank (ˈjæŋkɪ)

— n
1. derogatory often a native or inhabitant of the US; American

Except it isn't new as insults go. Which you should know if you've read beyond those first 14 pages of the court holding, to say nothing of additional reading and research on the topic.

Now, TH dear, I expect better reading skills out of you. I didn't say that the word Redskins was a new word or had a new meaning. I said "wise Indians know the train-wreck of relations creating a new n word would be."

The n word is different, as you demonstrated, than the word Redskins. That's because the n word requires a reaction, up to perhaps legal action, whenever it is uttered. Redskin hasn't reached that point yet, but if it does, it will only benefit a few Indians, a lot of rich white guys, and everyone else including most Indians will be worse off for it.

Something in that sentence is off to the point where I don't see what you're aiming at.

You said making Redskins utterance a litigable offense would benefit all Indians. Let's look at the n word to see how that has worked out... It hasn't worked out except for a few black men who are race baiters like Jesse and Reverend Al and a lot of lawyers (who are mostly white guys).

Because everyone knows that when you deny a rich white guy the right to singularly profit from a historically disparaging term that's what you invite, a race war.

You haven't paid attention to the n word then. What turning Redskins into a type of n word will do is give the lawyers, with white men being lawyers more than any other race, access to litigation cash when the word is uttered.

Said another way, the only white men presently benefiting from the word Redskin are, for the most part, the ownership and marketing arm of the NFL football team which use the name as a compliment. But you aim to change that to a nationwide bunch of race baiters and lawyers and change the word, universally, into a pejorative.

Rather, the n word was something vile and established by racists who, doubtless, felt justified in their determination blacks were less human and could be treated, traded and thought of in those terms. I think recognizing that is empowering to minorities and has a way of putting the user in strong relief. The Klan isn't really the animal it was during the not so recent past, by way of.

The n word isn't helping blacks at present. It's hurting them except for a few race baiters. If it didn't have the status it presently has, blacks would be better off for the term, at the very least, by clearly identifying who doesn't like them.

And beyond that, do you really think the KKK is weakened by the status of the n word? I can just see the KKK meeting "Sorry guys, but we'll be prosecuted for using the n word in public. I guess we're going to have to learn to like [n words] now." :darwinsm:

Because that's what good manners reduce to with some people... lain:

Ah, ya got me. I should have been a more careful.

TH supports a race war. I expect most bureaucrats/lawyers would.

 

[resurrected]

TH supports a race war. I expect most bureaucrats/lawyers would.

gotta find those billable hours where you can :chuckle:

 

[The Barbarian]

I liked the old racists better than modern racists. At least they weren't ashamed to admit it.