Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
Page 1 of 2 pages
The widespread use of this slur for so long, and the relentless defenses of it, represent a truly bizarre episode in our history.
Oh you should be there for the excuses I get for 'squaw'......"It just means 'Indian woman'. Don't be so thin-skinned."
Do you run into a lot of people using "squaw?"
I know plenty of people who are beige, brown, almond, mocha, coffee with cream, hazel, chocolate, sepia, tan, ochre, and many other colors but never known anyone black.
Why? Simple decency. I wouldn’t want to use a word that defines a people — living or dead, offended or not — in a most demeaning way. It’s a question not of who or how many had their feelings hurt, but of whether you want to associate yourself with a word that, for whatever historical reason having nothing to do with you, carries inherently derogatory connotations.
I really like the term "colored." I know the history and wouldn't use it in any setting but a historical review. But it seems so beautifully descriptive and inclusive, especially compared to "black" which has connotations of evil and an absence of light. I know plenty of people who are beige, brown, almond, mocha, coffee with cream, hazel, chocolate, sepia, tan, ochre, and many other colors but never known anyone black. Why people abandoned such an imagery for a word that is so limiting may have had important political dimensions, but lacks poetic heft.
Maybe that's simply because Krauthammer doesn't want to be like people like you, who think that merely using the Redskins name is evidence of intentional racism. Can't say that I blame him.
And as a matter of curiosity, I'd love for you to cite a single sports nickname in history where the intent of the name was to insult the people associated with it.
"Redskins." I don't buy the lack of intent argument. There's not necessarily overt intent to slur, but there's clearly extreme recklessness. The name is used intentionally (*), with the knowledge that many people believe it to be a slur -- so how's that not some species of intent?
SBB, you might simply admit what's obvious to everyone who looks at the record and thinks about it for fifteen seconds, namely that nobody has ever spoken or written "The Washington Redskins" with any intent to insult Native Americans. Not today, not in 1933 when the name was adopted, and not at any point in between. It's an assertion without a shred of evidence to back it up. Why you continue to try to embellish a perfectly legitimate argument for a name change by dragging this false side issue into it is a continuing mystery.
Why would I "admit" something that obviously isn't true?
If some rube got to the US a couple hours ago and called somebody a "n_____" because he heard the term on the radio, then yeah, I'd say he didn't intend to slur. But that's not the situation with "R_____s," right? It's been repeatedly pointed out to the users, with varying degrees of intensity over many years, by voices of many races, that the name is a slur. Dictionaries of record call it a slur (because it is). What is "unintentional" about continued use of the term in that context? Some imagined non-slurrish usage noted almost solely by the users of the word? What's "really in the hearts" of the users?
Sorry, no sale.
We can put that in the "I'm not sayin', just sayin'" category, I suppose,
Wrong category. Your claim that the slurs are unintentional is not accurate. That's what I'm sayin'.
I'm struggling with the concept of Krauthammer being right about anything.
"Time is running short. Saddam has weapons of mass destruction. He is working on nuclear weapons. And he has every incentive to pass them on to terrorists who will use them against us. We cannot hold the self-defense of the United States hostage to the solving of a century-old regional conflict."
How far the Democrats have come. Forty years ago to the month, President Kennedy asserts his willingness to present his case to the United Nations, but also his determination not to allow the United Nations to constrain America's freedom of action. Today his brother, a leader of the same party, awaits the guidance of the United Nations before he will declare himself on how America should respond to another nation threatening the United States with weapons of mass destruction.
The inability to find the weapons is indeed troubling, but only because it means that the weapons remain unaccounted for and might be in the wrong hands. The idea that our inability to thus far find the weapons proves that the threat was phony and hyped is simply false.
“Hans Blix had five months to find weapons. He found nothing. We’ve had five weeks. Come back to me in five months. If we haven’t found any, we will have a credibility problem.”
“Did we invade the wrong country? One of the lessons now being drawn from the 9/11 report is that Iran was the real threat. The Iraq War critics have a new line of attack: We should have done Iran instead...There are only two things that will stop the Iranian nuclear program: revolution from below or an attack on its nuclear facilities.
Nope, it's only only October 19, and the other red diaper baby thread appears to still be going strong.
His reasoning is simply absurd, as in this gem: "I don’t like being ... blackmailed by tribal leaders playing the race card." Huh? Someone telling me that "R______s" is a slur is "blackmailing" me? WTF?
I don't even associate "redskins" with native americans, precisely because nobody uses the term in everyday life unless they're talking about football.
When he does surrender, he absolutely has to choose as the new name a two-syllable word that will slide right into Hail To The Redskins.
If the name Coons or Jigaboos were the team name, would you say the same thing? I never hear people use those terms anymore either.
[Ignore List Updated]
The problem is the dishonesty: playing with terms of language for position over someone, and claiming it is purely a matter of morals, of ethics, of the right thing. That's the horse #### factor.
The urge to dominate and humiliate is older than dirt;
"[T]he value of my nostalgia has a limit. Knowingly asking my children to embrace a racial slur crosses that line. Our family tradition will thrive in a new light, I hope.
Good to see that at least some Washingtonians are willing to face the truth.
The urge to dominate and humiliate is older than dirt;
You got peed on a lot as a kid, didn't you?
Take no heroes, only inspiration.
#87 I don't know. A reference to the specific post makes a great deal of sense to me. I'm done with you and this is why.
I found #87 pretty innocuous myself ... well, I would have if I didn't have the poster on ignore ... but I know we all have lines that others aren't welcome to cross, & if that's yours, obviously that's that.
I skimmed Ron's post the first time though, and that was the impression I got. I wondered what the hell Yearggh had said that could have pissed him off that much.
he's paraphrasing Dan saying he, Dan, is done with gef- for the reason Dan set forth in #68
I think you are misreading Ron's post, he's not saying that he, Ron, is done with Yeaaargghhh, he's paraphrasing Dan saying he, Dan, is done with gef- for the reason Dan set forth in #68
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
Login to Join (0 members)
Page rendered in 4.0669 seconds, 67 querie(s) executed