or Connect
TheSandTrap.com › Golf Forum › The 19th Hole › Sports › Political Correctness - How Far Should it Go? Should the Washington Redskins change their name?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Political Correctness - How Far Should it Go? Should the Washington Redskins change their name? - Page 4

Poll Results: Should the owners of the Redskins, Blackhawks, Indians be forced to change their teams name?

 
  • 40% (12)
    Yes, it's insensitive to American Indians
  • 46% (14)
    No, it's a non-issue
  • 13% (4)
    Who cares, this is a golf forum
30 Total Votes  
post #55 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeremie Boop View Post
 

The more we change things to suit the few the more dangerous the precedent we set is. This is why I think that in order for something to be changed there needs to be consensus among those that it is supposed to offend. That's why I said if there was a way of showing that most or at the very least a large number of Native Americans are offended by the team name that it should be changed, but also that any team with the same name should also be forced to change their name. "Geek Squad" could easily be considered an offensive name because the tern "Geek" has been used as a derogatory name for both smart people and people with deformities and/or body modifications. If people came forward pushing for that name to be changed should it be?

 

This pretty much sums up my feelings.

post #56 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by Golfingdad View Post
 

Again with the slippery slope ... oy.

 

And regarding your last hypothetical, it's silly to make the argument that "geek" could offend smart people, because that is not a defined group.  It's completely arbitrary.  But for arguments sake, lets say the term does refer to people with deformities (I didn't know that) ... then the answer to your last question would be sure.  We just did that with the term "retarded" several years ago, no?  Is NOT saying that as an insult to people really a burden on others?  Of course not.  We're going through the 'transformation' right now with getting people to stop saying "gay" as a negative or derogatory term.  These aren't bad things.

It's not "silly" to say that geek could be offensive. Though, granted, my use of "smart people" wasn't a great example. However, those called "geek" or "nerd" are typically those who achieve very high marks in school, which would be considered "smart people". The funny thing is, these aren't normally the people you find working for Geek Squad, as we are able to get better jobs because of our intelligence and education.

post #57 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeremie Boop View Post
 

It's not "silly" to say that geek could be offensive. Though, granted, my use of "smart people" wasn't a great example. However, those called "geek" or "nerd" are typically those who achieve very high marks in school, which would be considered "smart people". The funny thing is, these aren't normally the people you find working for Geek Squad, as we are able to get better jobs because of our intelligence and education.

That's not what I meant.  It's not at all silly to think that calling somebody a geek could offend them.  But it's an arbitrary term that doesn't apply to a defined group of people.  I don't really have any grounds for saying 'geek' offends me as a person when the term is used towards somebody else just because I have an IQ of 130 (just made that up, I don't have any idea), therefore, I know you think I'm a geek too.  If we're going to play the slippery slope game, then you have to tell the publishers of "Idiots Guide ..." books and "For Dummies ..." books that they have to change their names because they offend stupid people.

 

There is also an age where the terms 'geek' and 'nerd' go from being insults to compliments for a lot of people.

 

This is why it's not a very good comparison to the term 'redskin.'  While you can certainly make arguments that perhaps it doesn't really offend a lot of people (I still say that wihte guys are walking on really shaky ground suggesting that it doesn't or shouldn't offend people), you cannot make arguments about what it means, or who it applies to.

post #58 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by Golfingdad View Post
 

That's not what I meant.  It's not at all silly to think that calling somebody a geek could offend them.  But it's an arbitrary term that doesn't apply to a defined group of people.  I don't really have any grounds for saying 'geek' offends me as a person when the term is used towards somebody else just because I have an IQ of 130 (just made that up, I don't have any idea), therefore, I know you think I'm a geek too.  If we're going to play the slippery slope game, then you have to tell the publishers of "Idiots Guide ..." books and "For Dummies ..." books that they have to change their names because they offend stupid people.

 

There is also an age where the terms 'geek' and 'nerd' go from being insults to compliments for a lot of people.

 

This is why it's not a very good comparison to the term 'redskin.'  While you can certainly make arguments that perhaps it doesn't really offend a lot of people (I still say that wihte guys are walking on really shaky ground suggesting that it doesn't or shouldn't offend people), you cannot make arguments about what it means, or who it applies to.

Actually, I'm surprised those book titles haven't caused a ruckus. Though it would surprise me if they did in the future. I'm not saying what should or shouldn't offend people, I'm saying that if they can't agree that it's offensive how can we?

post #59 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeremie Boop View Post
 

Actually, I'm surprised those book titles haven't caused a ruckus.

No, you aren't.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeremie Boop View Post
 

I'm not saying what should or shouldn't offend people, I'm saying that if they can't agree that it's offensive how can we?

We can't ... but I'm saying we don't have to.  Enough people are offended by it that we're talking about it.  What is the exact criteria?  Is it total number?  Or percentage?  According to the 2010 census there are 5.2 million people in America who identified as a native American.  So, how many?  Is 1000 not enough?  10,000?  Does it have to be just a majority ... is 2.6 million enough?  Or does it only matter if it offends the whole lot of them?

 

Point is, who's drawing this line and where is it being drawn?

post #60 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by Golfingdad View Post
 

No, you aren't.

 

We can't ... but I'm saying we don't have to.  Enough people are offended by it that we're talking about it.  What is the exact criteria?  Is it total number?  Or percentage?  According to the 2010 census there are 5.2 million people in America who identified as a native American.  So, how many?  Is 1000 not enough?  10,000?  Does it have to be just a majority ... is 2.6 million enough?  Or does it only matter if it offends the whole lot of them?

 

Point is, who's drawing this line and where is it being drawn?

So if anything offends enough people, or at least people who have the ability to make it known they are offended we should automatically do what they say?

 

Also, I've heard people say "don't be offended but I think you should pick up *subject* for Dummies books before. So obviously some people are offended.

post #61 of 92
Thread Starter 

I don't know how people came to believe in a country that holds freedom of speech as a core right, individuals are entitled to never hear a word or thought that might be offensive.  

 

I am amazed when people try to get a television show or radio show thrown off the air because it is offensive when it would take so much less energy to simply change the channel.  Why are parents so entitled that they feel the need to ruin celebrations or events for everyone because their precious child can't participate.  In the example Ron provided, the mother felt the only acceptable outcome was to ruin the entire daddy daughter dance for every student because she doesn't have contact with her ex, how selfish is that?

 

I thought Redskin was a warrior, not a derogatory term.  In 2004, Native Americans didn't find it to be offensive when polled, now in 2013, Bob Costas who isn't even American Indian is offended and taking up the cause, give me a break.

 

Overall people are too hung up on words these days, call me a wop, ginney or dago, I'll laugh, it's stupid, but I'm not offended.  I run every day listening to hip hop music, if I had $1 for every time a song included the n word I'd be a very rich man.     

post #62 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeremie Boop View Post
 

So if anything offends enough people, or at least people who have the ability to make it known they are offended we should automatically do what they say?

 

Also, I've heard people say "don't be offended but I think you should pick up *subject* for Dummies books before. So obviously some people are offended.

Yes, but you're still equating it incorrectly.  Those people aren't offended by the books name, they are offended by their friend suggesting that they need the book, and thus are inferring that their friends are calling them dumb.  (But, really they aren't even offended ... they're just making a stupid joke.)**

 

There is no grey area in regards to who the word 'redskin' refers to.

post #63 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by newtogolf View Post
 

I don't know how people came to believe in a country that holds freedom of speech as a core right, individuals are entitled to never hear a word or thought that might be offensive.  

This is a good example of why I hate the slippery slope argument.  This isn't remotely what we're talking about here. It's a massive jump to a ridiculous conclusion.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by newtogolf View Post
 

I am amazed when people try to get a television show or radio show thrown off the air because it is offensive when it would take so much less energy to simply change the channel.  Why are parents so entitled that they feel the need to ruin celebrations or events for everyone because their precious child can't participate.  In the example Ron provided, the mother felt the only acceptable outcome was to ruin the entire daddy daughter dance for every student because she doesn't have contact with her ex, how selfish is that?  

This is a silly comparison as well.  Ron's story is appalling and that mother ought to be ashamed of herself.  She hurt people by taking away the father daughter dance for her own selfish reasons.

 

I'm still waiting for somebody to tell me who would be hurt by the Redskins changing their name?

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by newtogolf View Post
 

I thought Redskin was a warrior, not a derogatory term.  In 2004, Native Americans didn't find it to be offensive when polled, now in 2013, Bob Costas who isn't even American Indian is offended and taking up the cause, give me a break.   

I've never tried to use the term before, so I may be getting it slightly wrong, but I'm pretty sure this is an 'ad hominem.'  Costas has a little history (Augusta this year) of poking his nose in and blabbing off on issues where he may be better served keeping his mouth shut.  But whether or not he agrees or disagrees with an issue doesn't automatically make it right or wrong.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by newtogolf View Post
 

Overall people are too hung up on words these days, call me a wop, ginney or dago, I'll laugh, it's stupid, but I'm not offended.   

Good for you.  I'm that way too.  I really don't care what people call me and I don't get offended easily ... but I don't think that gives me the right to tell other people what should and should not offend them.

post #64 of 92
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Golfingdad View Post
 

Good for you.  I'm that way too.  I really don't care what people call me and I don't get offended easily ... but I don't think that gives me the right to tell other people what should and should not offend them.

 

Why should a vocal minority have the right to dictate to everyone else what THEY consider offensive and not offensive.   Trying to filter out every word we find offensive only gives those words more power.  Little kids think it's fun to say cuss words because they know they're not supposed to say them.

 

It's not the words, it's the intent behind them, people need to get over words.

post #65 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by newtogolf View Post
 

 

Why should a vocal minority have the right to dictate to everyone else what THEY consider offensive and not offensive.

I don't know ... maybe when the word we are referring to is known to EVERYBODY to apply specifically to said minority?  I believe you when you say you wouldn't be offended by being called a wop, but I would believe you just as much if you said you were offended.  As an Italian, you get to make that decision though, not me.

 

Further, if you said it offended you, I would make a point to never call you that.  I would not make it a point to argue that you are being too PC or thinned-skinned and should just lighten up, because if you don't then our Country is likely going to hell in a hand-basket.

post #66 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by Golfingdad View Post

This is a good example of why I hate the slippery slope argument.  This isn't remotely what we're talking about here. It's a massive jump to a ridiculous conclusion.

This is a silly comparison as well.  Ron's story is appalling and that mother ought to be ashamed of herself.  She hurt people by taking away the father daughter dance for her own selfish reasons.

I'm still waiting for somebody to tell me who would be hurt by the Redskins changing their name?

I've never tried to use the term before, so I may be getting it slightly wrong, but I'm pretty sure this is an 'ad hominem.'  Costas has a little history (Augusta this year) of poking his nose in and blabbing off on issues where he may be better served keeping his mouth shut.  But whether or not he agrees or disagrees with an issue doesn't automatically make it right or wrong.

Good for you.  I'm that way too.  I really don't care what people call me and I don't get offended easily ... but I don't think that gives me the right to tell other people what should and should not offend them.

If no one would be hurt, the name would not be a big deal to change. I have to assume there are thousands of proud Redskin fans who would hate a name change
post #67 of 92
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Golfingdad View Post
 

I don't know ... maybe when the word we are referring to is known to EVERYBODY to apply specifically to said minority?  I believe you when you say you wouldn't be offended by being called a wop, but I would believe you just as much if you said you were offended.  As an Italian, you get to make that decision though, not me.

 

Further, if you said it offended you, I would make a point to never call you that.  I would not make it a point to argue that you are being too PC or thinned-skinned and should just lighten up, because if you don't then our Country is likely going to hell in a hand-basket.

Again, it goes back to the intent behind the words.  I don't believe in any way the Washington Redskins conduct themselves, market their brand or their team in a manner that disparaging or offensive to American Indians.  The Redskins are a proud organization that have always attempted to bring in the best players to represent their area and team.  I could see if they were using harmful stereotypes or belittling American Indians but they don't.

 

It goes back to the intent behind the word, if you say something with the intent to be offensive, it's not likely the word but the combination of the intent and use of the word.  If you call me a dumb ginney joking around I'd laugh with you as you said it.   If a stranger said it in a threatening or belittling way with the intent to antagonize me then we'd have a problem, but not just because of the word ginney.

post #68 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by newtogolf View Post
 

Again, it goes back to the intent behind the words.  I don't believe in any way the Washington Redskins conduct themselves, market their brand or their team in a manner that disparaging or offensive to American Indians.  The Redskins are a proud organization that have always attempted to bring in the best players to represent their area and team.  I could see if they were using harmful stereotypes or belittling American Indians but they don't.

 

It goes back to the intent behind the word, if you say something with the intent to be offensive, it's not likely the word but the combination of the intent and use of the word.  If you call me a dumb ginney joking around I'd laugh with you as you said it.   If a stranger said it in a threatening or belittling way with the intent to antagonize me then we'd have a problem, but not just because of the word ginney.

I pretty much agree with everything you said here.  But I also feel that it's not my decision to make.  If an Indian decides that the word is offensive, even if we non-Indians don't think they're right, then it's offensive.  Like your example above ... you are the one that gets to decide whether or not you be offended by my joking with you, and whether or not you're bothered by a stranger saying it in a threatening way.

 

It's not my call, it's not the strangers, it's not Bob Costas' either. ;)

 

But, yes, I will stipulate that I think that the Redskins aren't intending to disparage but rather honor, and I'd like to believe that if I was an Indian, I would be honored.

post #69 of 92

I'm not offended but I'm also not native American,and I guess that's who this is all about, I say change the name if it's causing a problem.

post #70 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by nick1998bunker View Post

It's like calling African Americans black. Yet that stayed on. And about the above quote on non derogatory names, my highschool is the warriors and we run around in feathered chief hats.

Also, today while taking the past I noticed when you bubble in your race it has all the technical names and then for white it says white. Seems like reverse racism. I've always seen it as cacasian and African American or I've seen it as black and white. Seems weird

 

They are black in most of the rest of the world.  It was a proper appellation in the US up until just 30 years ago, after it was decided inthe 60's that "negro" was offensive.  Then they didn't like black any more so now it's the clumsy "African American".  They aren't called French-Africans in France, or English-Africans in the UK.  And it doesn't seem to bother anyone.

 

For the OP:  It was reported that it is a relatively small group of native Americans who form the protest group.  A poll of the general native population was overwhelmingly "I don't care."  The only reason they are targeting the Redskins is because they are located in Washington DC.  If they succeed there, then they will turn their sights on Cleveland, Atlanta, Kansas City. 

 

Political correctness is out of control in the US, and getting worse all the time.  Too much offense taken over nothing at all.  Whatever happened the adage I was taught to live by when I was young:  "Sticks and stones can break my bones, but names can never hurt me."

post #71 of 92
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Golfingdad View Post
 

I pretty much agree with everything you said here.  But I also feel that it's not my decision to make.  If an Indian decides that the word is offensive, even if we non-Indians don't think they're right, then it's offensive.  Like your example above ... you are the one that gets to decide whether or not you be offended by my joking with you, and whether or not you're bothered by a stranger saying it in a threatening way.

 

It's not my call, it's not the strangers, it's not Bob Costas' either. ;)

 

But, yes, I will stipulate that I think that the Redskins aren't intending to disparage but rather honor, and I'd like to believe that if I was an Indian, I would be honored.

:beer:  I think we've reached an agreement, let the Native Americans decide without influence from the special interest groups that do not have any Native American blood in them.

post #72 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by Golfingdad View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeremie Boop View Post
 

No, but they may ban sitting that way if someone is physically unable to do it, haha. Just being facetious there but you see what I'm saying. I also know it's not ok to refer to a meeting as a "pow wow" because it offended someone. Some things make sense to change or remove and others don't. I think the main point I have against forcing the Redskins to change their name is what I already stated. If it's not acceptable then they should also change the name of any Native American school's mascot that's Redskins. I'll never agree with the "ok for me but not you" stance.

This might be a good time for me to restate that I'm not really in the camp of forcing them to change their name either.  I think that I might be of the same opinion that I had in regards to Tiger at the Masters.

 

It was something like ... "He should definitely not be DQ'd, but, boy, would it make him look good if he withdrew."

 

I think it might be a good PR move if Snyder chose, on his own, to change the name.  Speak with some of the most vocal Indian opposition to the name and try to come up with an alternative name that makes them proud.  I tried to find an example but not a lot of the area tribes - according to wikipedia - have names that roll off the tongue.  The Washington Tutelo??

 

-------------------------

 

Jeremie, here is another paragraph from your link that I think sums it up really well too:

 

"The name of a certain pro football team in Washington, D.C., has inspired protests, hearings, editorials, lawsuits, letters from Congress, even a presidential nudge. Yet behind the headlines, it's unclear how many Native Americans think "Redskins" is a racial slur.

 

Perhaps this uncertainty shouldn't matter — because the word has an undeniably racist history, or because the team says it uses the word with respect, or because in a truly decent society, some would argue, what hurts a few should be avoided by all."

 

Changing the name voluntarily would be the "decent" thing to do.

 

Then what do you do next when a protest is raised by a minority of fans of mixed race who is offended by the loss of a name with many years of history, loyalty, even love, behind it?  Would changing the name back be the "decent thing to do"?  

 

This is circular argument without end.  At some point a line must be drawn.  As mentioned somewhere above, you simply cannot make everyone happy.  When you start catering to any pressure group over relatively inconsequential issues, the line has already been crossed, in my opinion.  

 

The key term in the phrase "political correctness" is "political".  We are talking politics, and as usual when that is the case, logic goes right out the window.  

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Sports
TheSandTrap.com › Golf Forum › The 19th Hole › Sports › Political Correctness - How Far Should it Go? Should the Washington Redskins change their name?