[BostonCard]

[quote author=Yvonne link=topic=10129.msg91614#msg91614 date=1403738134]
Call it self-sanctimony if you will. I hope it makes you feel good. What happened to these people is WORSE than what happened in the gas chambers because the indigenous Americans are practically extinct. When Americans were protesting apartheid, many South Africans pointed out that Americans had no room to criticize South Africans' treatment of the indigenous Africans because Americans had killed off their indigenous residents.

These are not mascots. These are human beings.

And yes, Ferrari, it does feel a little different when we substitute words like nigger, spick, and kike for redskins, doesn't it?

I have no dog in this fight, but the expressed antagonism is something I have not seen on this board in my very short time here and if I find its manifestation extremely disappointing. Personally, I find the term "Chicano" highly offensive, but I could care less that I was asked to check the box that said "Chicano/Mexican-American" on most Stanford forms that requested my ethnicity. I laughed at it, checked the box, and went on my way...it's not what people call me; it's what I respond to...

Isn't EVERY country that exists today as well as every race guilty of atrocities at some point in their history? Every thing that exists today was at one point conquered with the indigenous people displaced or eradicated.  No one holds the moral highground.

The mascot argument I think ties into the slippery-slope argument that was previously stated. Given the way legalism works in this country, nothing surprises me.
[/quote]

No, I don't think we have to concern ourselves with a slippery slope argument here.  You stated that you find the term "Chicano" highly offensive.  Knowing that, as a matter of simple courtesy, I will do my utmost to avoid referring to you by that term.  It doesn't matter that other people of a similar heritage don't find that offensive (and may even find it a point of pride); you have your reasons, and it is not up to someone else to tell you what you should or should not find offensive.

Now, that appears to be a personal thing for you... but let's say that a substantial minority of Mexican-Americans started voicing the same concerns.  I think as a matter of respect and courtesy, it would be incumbent upon me not to use the term.

What I dislike about the situation is not that the term "Redskin" has persisted into modern times.  What bothers me is that a substantial proportion (depending on which poll you use, either a substantial minority or a majority) of Native Americans have said they find the term offensive and yet the team and its owner continue to use it.  The message they are sending is, "F--- you; we don't care about you".  To me the bigger issue is not using an offensive term, but continuing to use it after being asked to stop.

Yvonne's point, that Native Americans have every right to be offended by the term is true but irrelevant here.  It is not up to the rest of society to define what is and what is not acceptable terminology to be offended by.  Offense is a feeling, and therefore cannot be objectively determined.

BC

[BostonCard]

[quote author=Yvonne link=topic=10129.msg91614#msg91614 date=1403738134]
Call it self-sanctimony if you will. I hope it makes you feel good. What happened to these people is WORSE than what happened in the gas chambers because the indigenous Americans are practically extinct. When Americans were protesting apartheid, many South Africans pointed out that Americans had no room to criticize South Africans' treatment of the indigenous Africans because Americans had killed off their indigenous residents.

These are not mascots. These are human beings.

And yes, Ferrari, it does feel a little different when we substitute words like nigger, spick, and kike for redskins, doesn't it?

I have no dog in this fight, but the expressed antagonism is something I have not seen on this board in my very short time here and if I find its manifestation extremely disappointing. Personally, I find the term "Chicano" highly offensive, but I could care less that I was asked to check the box that said "Chicano/Mexican-American" on most Stanford forms that requested my ethnicity. I laughed at it, checked the box, and went on my way...it's not what people call me; it's what I respond to...

Isn't EVERY country that exists today as well as every race guilty of atrocities at some point in their history? Every thing that exists today was at one point conquered with the indigenous people displaced or eradicated.  No one holds the moral highground.

The mascot argument I think ties into the slippery-slope argument that was previously stated. Given the way legalism works in this country, nothing surprises me.
[/quote]

No, I don't think we have to concern ourselves with a slippery slope argument here.  You stated that you find the term "Chicano" highly offensive.  Knowing that, as a matter of simple courtesy, I will do my utmost to avoid referring to you by that term.  It doesn't matter that other people of a similar heritage don't find that offensive (and may even find it a point of pride); you have your reasons, and it is not up to someone else to tell you what you should or should not find offensive.

Now, that appears to be a personal thing for you... but let's say that a substantial minority of Mexican-Americans started voicing the same concerns.  I think as a matter of respect and courtesy, it would be incumbent upon me not to use the term.

What I dislike about the situation is not that the term "Redskin" has persisted into modern times.  What bothers me is that a substantial proportion (depending on which poll you use, either a substantial minority or a majority) of Native Americans have said they find the term offensive and yet the team and its owner continue to use it.  The message they are sending is, "F--- you; we don't care about you".  To me the bigger issue is not using an offensive term, but continuing to use it after being asked to stop.

Yvonne's point, that Native Americans have every right to be offended by the term is true but irrelevant here.  It is not up to the rest of society to define what is and what is not acceptable terminology to be offended by.  Offense is a feeling, and therefore cannot be objectively determined.

BC