DescentBB

Charles Krauthammer writes a piece that at first blush makes perfect sense and coincides with the way I always have thought about these issues. But after reading it I realize he also has me convinced that we are both wrong about it.

In a nutshell he describes how we should stop calling the Redskins by that name because it is the decent thing to do even if no American Indians are offended by it.

But he reminds us that terms like Negro and Retarded were once chosen to replace words that were offensive at the time those new terms were chosen. And now those terms are offensive. Why?

At the core because calling attention to the state of the subject is offensive so anything you use to identify the subject can be interpreted to be a purposefully offensive choice if the listener has preconceived notions about the speakers intent to offend!

We called negroes blacks because the respectful term negro was interpreted to be a racists term. Why?!? Wasn't it chosen originally as an inoffensive alternative to the offensive terms used in that time? But once enough white people called a negro a negro the word became tainted by the users perceived inherent bigotry. Soon enough Black will have to be replaced...

So I say don't call the Redskins the Skins. Instead let's all just grow some thicker skin.

just switch allegiance to the Patriots and have done with it.



oh, and on a related note, I'm waiting to see the day when the Cleveland Indians get bought by some guy named Patel........

callmeslick wrote: oh, and on a related note, I'm waiting to see the day when the Cleveland Indians get bought by some guy named Patel........

That's a rather racist thing to say.

Will Robinson wrote:So I say don't call the Redskins the Skins. Instead let's all just grow some thicker skin.

I just call them "the team we just beat". ( I'm a Cowboys fan. )

ThunderBunny wrote:

callmeslick wrote: oh, and on a related note, I'm waiting to see the day when the Cleveland Indians get bought by some guy named Patel........

That's a rather racist thing to say.

No, that's funny!

ThunderBunny wrote:

callmeslick wrote: oh, and on a related note, I'm waiting to see the day when the Cleveland Indians get bought by some guy named Patel........

That's a rather racist thing to say.

as someone who worked for years with a ton of folks who immigrated from India, this is a joke we shared with some regularity. See it how you wish.

I say that they should change their name to "Leathernecks". More macho, less insensitive to that whole group of indigenous peoples we outright conquered and subjugated like animals when we invaded their lands. Redskins doesn't even sound like something another team should fear anyway. My uncle, who's a marine and lives and breathes all things Redskins, would still be happy.

Naming a bunch of draft dodging pro sports weenies is a insult to all the real Leathernecks out there. How about we call them "Scalpers"

wow, you ARE picking up the pace, Woody? Where do you come up with draft-dodging, when we haven't had a draft since 1975? I'm starting to sense a pattern here, and it might involve happy hour starting around 3 pm........

Wow you certainly got you indignation cap on.

woodchip wrote:Wow you certainly got you indignation cap on.

nah, I'm just on napping grandkid duty for an hour or so, and watching you fabricate reality is so entertaining.

You know…I really wish you two could stop kneejerking to each other, and go get a room.

Nah, I'm going a different route. I'm getting a room for the weekend at the beach. Waterfront, 7th story, with a bar and concierge service. With my wife, not with Woody. It's our 25th anniversary, so lest anyone thinks I cut and ran over the weekend, there I'll be.

What the hell is cut and run?

flip wrote:What the hell is cut and run?

That's what will replace 'drive by' if they ever ban guns.

More in tune with Wills post, I have to wonder why now. Bob Costas belaboring the fact makes me wonder why he didn't bring this up 10 or 20 years ago. Or is this just another smoke signal deflecting the low information voter from whats really important.

I get it!!!!!

Redskins


Smoke Signals

I tried to keep a theme... Of course I'll prolly be labeled as a filthy racist.

That OK I've been there done that. Just consider the source. If someone I knew called me a racist I'd take a look at myself and evaluate what they saw. But when some internet tard calls you a racist it's only because they have no argument and are trying to shut you up.

But that's what this whole tread is about right, racism

Will Robinson wrote:We called negroes blacks because the respectful term negro was interpreted to be a racists term. Why?!? Wasn't it chosen originally as an inoffensive alternative to the offensive terms used in that time? But once enough white people called a negro a negro the word became tainted by the users perceived inherent bigotry. Soon enough Black will have to be replaced...

So I say don't call the Redskins the Skins. Instead let's all just grow some thicker skin.

If you started a new NFL team and named them the "Blacks" and got bit by that in 20 years due to evolving language, I don't think I'd be very sympathetic. It's just not a good idea to name a team after a race.

Jeff250 wrote:If you started a new NFL team and named them the "Blacks" and got bit by that in 20 years due to evolving language, I don't think I'd be very sympathetic. It's just not a good idea to name a team after a race.

Wisdom spoken by one of the few grownups in this room.

Black is not a race.

Tell that to all African Americans who like to call themselves "black".

So is the President Black, African American, White, or Caucasian? Or is it a new race entirely. Because he is as much one as the other. And yet "blacks" chose to identify him as black

Or am I a racist for asking this question? I'm confused

Jeff250 wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:We called negroes blacks because the respectful term negro was interpreted to be a racists term. Why?!? Wasn't it chosen originally as an inoffensive alternative to the offensive terms used in that time? But once enough white people called a negro a negro the word became tainted by the users perceived inherent bigotry. Soon enough Black will have to be replaced...

So I say don't call the Redskins the Skins. Instead let's all just grow some thicker skin.

If you started a new NFL team and named them the "Blacks" and got bit by that in 20 years due to evolving language, I don't think I'd be very sympathetic. It's just not a good idea to name a team after a race.

In that case would it have been named that with any ill intent though? Black being a non offensive term at the time. If not it seems improper to acuse anyone of being offensive when the lexicon shifts to make the term offensive after the fact.

I don't know the history of the Redskins naming.

I do know I was born in 1959 and played cowboys and indians...indians usually were the bad guy, yet I often chose to be an indian because I like the underdogs. (Hmmm, should PITA fight to stop us from using the term underdog?)

But I don't recall ever using the term redskin as an insult.
It seems like a term that has long lost its place as an insult but remained as a historically correct term for kids re-enact ing their favorite western. And for the football team. The American Indian and tribal names and headdresses, etc have been revered icons. I wonder if there are many non-Indians that ever look at the name as an insulting term as opposed to as an iconic symbol.

CUDA wrote:So is the President Black, African American, White, or Caucasian? Or is it a new race entirely. Because he is as much one as the other. And yet "blacks" chose to identify him as black

Or am I a racist for asking this question? I'm confused

As Mayor Nagin coined, he is a chocolate American

tunnelcat wrote:Tell that to all African Americans who like to call themselves "black".

African American is not a race either.

Those are all terms for dark-skinned sub-Saharan Africans called Negroids. Those terms still apply since people that identify as that race commonly use them to describe themselves in the English language. Even government and business forms use the term "Black" as a race descriptor. They're interchangeable, so deal with it.

So serious….

Will Robinson wrote:In that case would it have been named that with any ill intent though? Black being a non offensive term at the time. If not it seems improper to acuse anyone of being offensive when the lexicon shifts to make the term offensive after the fact.

The argument that "Redskins" was originally chosen to honor Indians doesn't help much. I don't think it's a good idea for NFL teams to be in the business of honoring specific races either.

Jeff250 wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:In that case would it have been named that with any ill intent though? Black being a non offensive term at the time. If not it seems improper to acuse anyone of being offensive when the lexicon shifts to make the term offensive after the fact.

The argument that "Redskins" was originally chosen to honor Indians doesn't help much. I don't think it's a good idea for NFL teams to be in the business of honoring specific races either.

Then we should get rid of the Kansas City Chiefs, as calling a indian "Chief" is derogatory. So instead of looking at one name, lets make a list of all names with racial slurs connotated with them. Concentrating on just one name and forgetting the rest merely looks like selective pandering to the PC crowd.

Jeff250 wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:In that case would it have been named that with any ill intent though? Black being a non offensive term at the time. If not it seems improper to acuse anyone of being offensive when the lexicon shifts to make the term offensive after the fact.

The argument that "Redskins" was originally chosen to honor Indians doesn't help much. I don't think it's a good idea for NFL teams to be in the business of honoring specific races either.

I'm not trying to say it was meant to honor, or compliment in any way either. I think it was a choice of an iconic symbol. One that all Americans would identify with.

I think it is safe to say most kids would play football for a team called the Redskins and very few kids would want to play on the Negroes...even in the era that negro was the proper non-offensive term. I just don't think Redskin ever was a widely used prejorative, at least no more than generically noting the color of ones skin.

Me and my cousin were having this discussion a few days ago. It's laughable because most people living cannot claim a pure heritage. He did an ancestry search and we are directly related to slaves and Indians, yet we are classified as Caucasian. I'm proud of my redskin, but only to the point I know I had nothing to do with it . At this point, and on into the future, racism will become more and more absurd.

EDIT: I also want my damn 40 acres and a mule

well, Ted Cruz is your Senator, so you have your ass.....the 40 acres part, not so certain.

callmeslick wrote:well, Ted Cruz is your Senator, so you have your ass.....the 40 acres part, not so certain.

So slick, when your senator came back to your state did he get a long lasting standing ovation?

yeah, both of them. We're very happy with how the Delaware delegation voted. Thanks for asking. Now, the Virginia contingent is a larger group. The Senators both acted sensibly, but some of the House delegation is in a world of trouble, including our rep for the Eastern Shore(Rigell). He talked moderation, but voted with the lunatic fringe for a couple rounds, costing money to the defense contractors on the other side of the bay and costing millions to the tourist industry on my side by causing the shutdown of the National Seashore during fishing and bird watching seasons which bring in huge money. Even though he found sense at the end, it seems a LOT of folks are pissed off at him.

I guess your Senators lauding didn't make it to the news or I missed it.

The Delaware delgation never voted in favor of any bill to shut down the government, nor against any of the clean alternatives. Then again, we have a long history of sending common sense Republicans and Democrats to DC. What upset me, and my Dad, is that we didn't hear enough of the surviving, but elderly, old guard GOP calling to responsibility. Pete DuPont was strangely silent, along with Mike Castle. It's entirely possible that those two have simply given up on what used to be their party........

I think what you are seeing is a new conservatism blooming in the Republican party. You can use all the demeaning words you can think of but all those you disparage are backed by a sizable number of voters ( as seen in the 2010 elections). What you are really afraid of is the 2014 elections seeing the oustering of the Dems holding the Senate, the House staying in the hands of a ever growing tea party caucus and 2016 see's Ted Cruz as President. At that point we will see real economic growth, unemployment falls to 5% and people wondering who that Obama fella was.