You’re always fun. Always.
Yeah my dog keeps hearing noises outside tonite. So he barks and wakes my bird up. The bird starts banging on the cage to get out. Fucking Obama hates my bird.
This is kind of silly.
I mean, sure, everything’s offensive to someone… but it’s not actually a racial slur at this point. Most of the folks who I’ve seen most ardently opposed to the name are super white folks who seem like they really, really, really want to be as totally un-racist as they possibly can be.
Not all, of course. There’s that tribe currently fighting the NFL over the issue. But I really get the impression that this is kind of overblown.
THANKS OBAMA.
Everything you just said right there is a good thing.
From the man who unblushingly says Chinamen? Sop.
There’s no population threshold that a minority must sink below before a racist term for that group should be considered no longer relevant or offensive.
Also, Dude, Chinaman is not the preferred nomenclature.
I think this was a bullshit move and politically correct nonsense. Trademarks that offend groups of people are now null and void? What a slippery slope.
You might want to undo that top button, slacken your tie, and take seat. I would also suggest a stiff drink.
A life without laughter is a rather glum prospect.
Here, courtesy of Slate is actual research using real live primary sources.
in 2005, the Indian language scholar Ives Goddard of the Smithsonian Institution published a remarkable and consequential study of redskin’s early history. His findings shifted the dates for the word’s first appearance in print by more than a century and shed an awkward light on the contemporary debate. Goddard found, in summary, that “the actual origin of the word is entirely benign.”
Redskin, he learned, had not emerged first in English or any European language. The English term, in fact, derived from Native American phrases involving the color red in combination with terms for flesh, skin, and man. These phrases were part of a racial vocabulary that Indians often used to designate themselves in opposition to others whom they (like the Europeans) called black, white, and so on.
But the language into which those terms for Indians were first translated was French. The tribes among whom the proto forms of redskin first appeared lived in the area of the upper Mississippi River called Illinois country. Their extensive contact with French-speaking colonists, before the French pulled out of North America, led to these phrases being translated, in the 1760s, more or less literally as peau-rouge and only then into English as redskin. It bears mentioning that many such translators were mixed-blood Indians.
But anyway, damn the facts, let’s get those evil racists in Landover.
Video link from Broken Forum:
The day American Indians start numbering 1.2 billion, have access to nukes, start rattling their sabers at their neighbours, and live in a state where unfettered capitalism and totalitarianism are the order of the day (no, I don’t mean the US, I mean a country they’d govern), then maybe I’ll start using “redskins”, out of necessity (and not because I like it). Until then, I think it’s an inappropriate name for a football team, and one that fields, you’ll have to tell me since I don’t follow football, how many American-Indian players exactly?
Is racism protected by patent laws?
… one that you’ve been standing on likely since the day you were born. That’s some awesome traction you’ve got on your shoes.
And the n-word comes from a river in Africa, gay slurs refer to cigarettes and bundles of sticks, and the word dumbass comes from mute donkey, so those are all good as well, right? (meant humorously, fwiw)
Couple things to be careful of with Goddard’s work. There is a bit of apples and oranges underfoot between what Goddard argued and what is currently being debated about the term. Goddard traced the etymological roots of the the term and claimed benign origins and use (that debate continues). However, how the word historically evolved into a pejorative used by Euro-Americans, and how it was employed from the 19th century on (particularly in Hollywood in the 20th century) is the other part of the story that is clearly evident in the primary sources. Some of the very same historians and scholars whose work he cited in his article have criticized him for making broader claims about the term that his research simply does not support. The internet being what it is, Slate cherry-picked Goddard’s work without engaging with the broader context.
Of course this is about free speech. Using government authority to repress speech, however repugnant, is the definition of a free speech concern. I don’t like the Redskins either as a franchise or as a name. However, I hate the use of the government deciding what is acceptable use of speech. It is illiberal and obviously there is no limiting principle. The limiting principle seems to be what the majority finds acceptable and that is concerning to people who believe in a free society. This is one of those times that I and the ACLU make common cause. The name Redskins is in many ways odious. However, the government deciding what is acceptable and what is not is a very worrying concept that concerns old school liberals like myself, who are a different breed from modern day progressives.
I missed the government ruling that told them they couldn’t actually use the word Redskin. Could you point it out?
That’s what this all really comes down to. I haven’t been reading any news coverage about this, but based on some comments here there seems to be a lot of misinformation going around. The Washington Redskins are free to continue using that name until the end of time. In fact, they can continue using their various logos associated with the team as well! The USPTO has no ability whatsoever to prevent them from doing either of those things. All the USPTO can do is refuse to grant the team exclusive rights to using their marks (e.g., the team name, their logo) in connection with football related goods and services.
An ethnic group’s numbers or military capacity have no relevance whatsoever to the use of sweepingly derogatory or racist terms. That you feel otherwise speaks volumes about you. There’s never a “necessity” to do so.
Vet’s got it figured out! Once any group gets too numerous or uppity you can totally trot out the slurs and feel great about it!