Thread of Hate

[QMany]

I hate it when people are over-sensitive. This whole deal about the Redskins having to change their name because it offends someone is pretty stupid IMO.

Yeah, I never did understand that Redskins lawsuit. It's not like a team chooses a mascot so they can ridicule or debase the mascot. It's usually because it has something to do with the city (Miami Heat) or because the mascot has traits they admire (Redskins = fierce, cool looking Indian warrior). Go figure.

Playing Devils Advocate here ...

The term is controversial as it is considered by some to be extremely offensive (an r-word for Native Americans equivalent to the n-word for African-Americans).[1]

What if Detroit wanted to honor their population, their athletic prowess, and cool dancing by calling their team the Detroit N******?

I don't think it is too hard to understand.

 

[walksalone]

As being Native American, I have a bit of a problem with that. Don't wait umpteen years to get pissed about it, that just looks like convenient activism.

What really pisses me off is the whole Fighting Sioux thing. I am proud of that, and hell own two jerseys too boot...

 

[NUance]

I hate it when people are over-sensitive. This whole deal about the Redskins having to change their name because it offends someone is pretty stupid IMO.

Yeah, I never did understand that Redskins lawsuit. It's not like a team chooses a mascot so they can ridicule or debase the mascot. It's usually because it has something to do with the city (Miami Heat) or because the mascot has traits they admire (Redskins = fierce, cool looking Indian warrior). Go figure.

Playing Devils Advocate here ...

The term is controversial as it is considered by some to be extremely offensive (an r-word for Native Americans equivalent to the n-word for African-Americans).[1]

What if Detroit wanted to honor their population, their athletic prowess, and cool dancing by calling their team the Detroit N******?

I don't think it is too hard to understand.

Your point would be valid if the term "Redskins" was commensurate with the term "ni***rs." But it isn't. For example, if my three-year old kid was in the backyard playing cowboys and Indians with his buddies, I might say "Look at those little Redskins running around." But if he was playing hoops at his 4' high basketball goal I would not say, "Look at that little ni***r drive the lane."

Also, unlike the N-bomb, the term Redskin seems to apply to Native Americans of long ago. Not that it's a bad term, mind you. But using Redskin just seems akin to using the term chief, braves and such. I can't imagine calling a Native American of today a Redskin. Just like I wouldn't say "Hey Chief" to a Native American person I didn't know very well.

 

[StPaulHusker]

I don't find it to be offensive. Tasteless? Yes. Kind of like the drunken Indian face for Cleveland. If the mascot is portrayed in a way that honors a tribe like the Seminoles and Fighting Sioux, it's not so bad.

Also, you might need to look at the context of when these mascots were formed. Back in the 50's or earlier when lots of things done back then were considered un-PC now.

I can appreciate the history behind these teams but there is nothing wrong with modernizing it either. For lack of a better term.

 

[QMany]

I hate it when people are over-sensitive. This whole deal about the Redskins having to change their name because it offends someone is pretty stupid IMO.

Yeah, I never did understand that Redskins lawsuit. It's not like a team chooses a mascot so they can ridicule or debase the mascot. It's usually because it has something to do with the city (Miami Heat) or because the mascot has traits they admire (Redskins = fierce, cool looking Indian warrior). Go figure.

Playing Devils Advocate here ...

The term is controversial as it is considered by some to be extremely offensive (an r-word for Native Americans equivalent to the n-word for African-Americans).[1]

What if Detroit wanted to honor their population, their athletic prowess, and cool dancing by calling their team the Detroit N******?

I don't think it is too hard to understand.

Your point would be valid if the term "Redskins" was commensurate with the term "ni***rs." But it isn't. For example, if my three-year old kid was in the backyard playing cowboys and Indians with his buddies, I might say "Look at those little Redskins running around." But if he was playing hoops at his 4' high basketball goal I would not say, "Look at that little ni***r drive the lane."

Also, unlike the N-bomb, the term Redskin seems to apply to Native Americans of long ago. Not that it's a bad term, mind you. But using Redskin just seems akin to using the term chief, braves and such. I can't imagine calling a Native American of today a Redskin. Just like I wouldn't say "Hey Chief" to a Native American person I didn't know very well.

I wasn't sure if it was offensive to Native Americans so I Googled it, and many do find it offensive like n*****.

That is why I included an quote and link saying as much. I'll try to include less support next time.

 

[knapplc]

As has been mentioned in umpteen discussions such as this, *we* don't get to decide what is or isn't offensive in someone else's eyes. If Native Americans find the term "redskins" as offensive as African Americans find the term "n****r," who are we to tell them they're wrong?

How can I decide who's offended by such things? It's up to the individual. And if enough individuals are offended, the offending party - regardless of their intent to offend - should take notice.

 

[GSG]

We had a speaker in college who is an Innuit, and he told us that calling them "Eskimo" was equivalent to calling black people "n*****s"

I had never heard that until that point in my life. Weird.

 

[sd'sker]

i agree with knapplc, but i do think intention plays a role. i do not think people who use the offending slang should be vilified, but if people are legitimately offended and the etymology of the word has a dark, albeit little known, pretense, people should respect that.

 

[NUance]

If I understand correctly (without the need to include less support next time, QMany), a lot of folks here think that a mascot should not be allowed if anyone is offended by it? Or perhaps not just one offended person, but if enough individuals are are offended by it? Isn't that a bit arbitrary, and maybe even all encompassing? I mean, there are quite a few mascots out there for which you could find *some* small segment who are offended. Fighting Irish? Well, my Irish ancestors were peace-loving--(albeit slightly intoxicated). Cornhuskers? When I was in college I wasn't crazy about our own mascot. I thought it colored us to be a university of farmer hicks.

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on this. But I do agree with HuskerShark's post above.

 

[StPaulHusker]

If I understand correctly (without the need to include less support next time, QMany), a lot of folks here think that a mascot should not be allowed if anyone is offended by it? Or perhaps not just one offended person, but if enough individuals are are offended by it? Isn't that a bit arbitrary, and maybe even all encompassing? I mean, there are quite a few mascots out there for which you could find *some* small segment who are offended. Fighting Irish? Well, my Irish ancestors were peace-loving--(albeit slightly intoxicated). Cornhuskers? When I was in college I wasn't crazy about our own mascot. I thought it colored us to be a university of farmer hicks.

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on this. But I do agree with HuskerShark's post above.

I think it might just have more to do with the name itself. Native Americans see the term "Redskin" as derogatory and therefore offensive. Maybe not all. Now would your ancestors have been offended if the team was called The Fighting Mic's? Guess we will never know because the team wasn't called that. And as far as the Cornhusker name and logo is concerned, I would venture to guess that very few if any people find the name racially derogatory and/or offensive.

Until we have been in their shoes, it's hard to know what the right answer is.

 

[Creighton Duke]

As has been mentioned in umpteen discussions such as this, *we* don't get to decide what is or isn't offensive in someone else's eyes. If Native Americans find the term "redskins" as offensive as African Americans find the term "n****r," who are we to tell them they're wrong?

How can I decide who's offended by such things? It's up to the individual. And if enough individuals are offended, the offending party - regardless of their intent to offend - should take notice.

This leads back to the subject's OP's point

I hate it when people are over-sensitive. This whole deal about the Redskins having to change their name because it offends someone is pretty stupid IMO.

I don't know who is being offended, but I can easily tell when someone is being overly sensitive.

 

[sd'sker]

As has been mentioned in umpteen discussions such as this, *we* don't get to decide what is or isn't offensive in someone else's eyes. If Native Americans find the term "redskins" as offensive as African Americans find the term "n****r," who are we to tell them they're wrong?

How can I decide who's offended by such things? It's up to the individual. And if enough individuals are offended, the offending party - regardless of their intent to offend - should take notice.

This leads back to the subject's OP's point

I hate it when people are over-sensitive. This whole deal about the Redskins having to change their name because it offends someone is pretty stupid IMO.

I don't know who is being offended, but I can easily tell when someone is being overly sensitive.

how can you easily tell something that is so subjective? are you equally good at telling when someone is being under-sensitive?

 

[GSG]

I know you can be overwhelmed. And I know you can be underwhelmed. But can you just be whelmed?

 

[QMany]

I know you can be overwhelmed. And I know you can be underwhelmed. But can you just be whelmed?

Whelm (verb) 1. to submerge; engulf.

The runner was whelmed in the storm.

Overwhelmed has somewhat whelmed "whelm" over the years.

Article on the history: http://www.randomhou...l?date=19990915

 

[GSG]

I know you can be overwhelmed. And I know you can be underwhelmed. But can you just be whelmed?

Whelm (verb) 1. to submerge; engulf.

The runner was whelmed in the storm.

Overwhelmed has somewhat whelmed "whelm" over the years.

Article on the history: http://www.randomhou...l?date=19990915

:lol: Thanks!

Note: That's line from 10 Things I Hate About You

Chastity: I know you can be overwhelmed, and you can be underwhelmed, but can you ever just be whelmed?

Bianca: I think you can in Europe.