Go Back   New Orleans Saints - blackandgold.com > Main > Saints > NFL

Simms, Dungy say they will not use term 'Redskins' this season

this is a discussion within the NFL Community Forum; Originally Posted by Tobias-Reiper As it's been noted every time this sort of reply is given on the topic, none of the nicknames you describe are racial slurs, not even "fighting Irish". Just out of curiosity... This is a slur ...

Like Tree11Likes

Closed Thread
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 08-20-2014, 03:07 PM   #11
10000 POST CLUB
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Cypress Tx.
Posts: 16,193
Re: Sims and Dungy won't say Redskins in games

Originally Posted by Tobias-Reiper View Post
As it's been noted every time this sort of reply is given on the topic, none of the nicknames you describe are racial slurs, not even "fighting Irish".
Just out of curiosity...

This is a slur


This isnt?


The earliest known use is 1699 where it is used as a descriptor, not a slur.
"Ye firste Meetinge House was solid mayde to withstande ye wicked onsaults of ye Red Skins."
See... The Delaware Indians used Vermillion face and body paint.

Point being that if it has somehow evolved into a term that a minority of the living Indians finds offensive, it could possibly evolve back into being just a description with a fair amount of honesty and education.
saintfan likes this.

If you play stupid games, you win stupid prizes.

Like and vote https://www.facebook.com/pages/Charl...44287815781246
TheOak is offline  
Old 08-20-2014, 05:31 PM   #12
Site Donor
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: in line with my ridiculous CLEAR PLASTIC BAG
Posts: 3,264
Blog Entries: 3
Re: Simms, Dungy say they will not use term 'Redskins' this season

If they don't want to use it, that's fine. I won't be saying the word "Dungy" this season either. It's offensive to me!
Tobias-Reiper and frydaddy like this.
SaintsBro is offline  
Old 08-20-2014, 08:09 PM   #13
Site Donor
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,598
Re: Simms, Dungy say they will not use term 'Redskins' this season

Simms and Dungy - 2 Guys who can do the 3 Stooges by themselves
Danno likes this.
44Champs is online now  
Old 08-20-2014, 09:32 PM   #14
Merces Letifer
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 3,731
Re: Sims and Dungy won't say Redskins in games

Originally Posted by TheOak View Post
Just out of curiosity...

This is a slur


This isnt?


The earliest known use is 1699 where it is used as a descriptor, not a slur.
"Ye firste Meetinge House was solid mayde to withstande ye wicked onsaults of ye Red Skins."
See... The Delaware Indians used Vermillion face and body paint.

Point being that if it has somehow evolved into a term that a minority of the living Indians finds offensive, it could possibly evolve back into being just a description with a fair amount of honesty and education.
It could, like many words have...

But let's put it in a way Danny Snyder can understand.
What's the origin of the word "kike"? Whether you think it originated as a sort of nickname for Jews since many Jewish last names end in "ki" or in Ellis Island because illiterate Jewish immigrants signed with an O instead of an X, do you think The Danny would have cheered for a team called the Washington Kikes? What about the Washington Treblinkers? Obviously, we know such names for a team would've never made it past 1948, and very few places in the world would allow such names to be used.

Or how about the "n-word"? Where does it come from? There are a number of theories as to where it came from; to me the most obvious is the good ol' boy pronunciation of "negro" (like fellow/feller, or yellow/yeller), which is Latin for "black", and "black" being a logical description of a pale European first laying eyes to someone from Sub-Saharan Africa, just like the 1699 European who first laid eyes on the American natives. It used to be that "Negroid" was the anthropological name for the race of people who originated from Sub-Saharan Africa, now it is Congoid because the word Negroid is considered racist.

So regardless of the origin, those 2 words went from description to bona fide racial slurs, and we (meaning society in general) recognize them as such, and therefore avoid their usage (if we are not part of said ethnic groups).

Unless you are around 70 years old, you and I were born in an era in which both words are defined as racial slurs. But think about why we define those terms as racial slurs today. I am not going to type a long manifesto, but the gist of it is, neither the Jewish people or Congoids were isolated in reservations and forgotten after what happened to them as races, nor vilified them in countless movies and TV shows.

Now, for the record, I am a person who thinks racial slurs are laughable, as you don't get to define what you are, only who you are. Yet, I can understand why such words would stir certain feelings in different people, and as such, I think we should give Native Americans the same courtesy as we give to any other ethnic group. Simple as that.

And a quick edit to add: both of those images I'd consider slurs. I don't get the fascination with using such names either.
Crusader likes this.

La neta es chida, pero inalcanzable
Tobias-Reiper is offline  
Old 08-21-2014, 08:22 AM   #15
10000 POST CLUB
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Cypress Tx.
Posts: 16,193
Re: Sims and Dungy won't say Redskins in games

Originally Posted by Tobias-Reiper View Post
It could, like many words have...

But let's put it in a way Danny Snyder can understand.
What's the origin of the word "kike"? Whether you think it originated as a sort of nickname for Jews since many Jewish last names end in "ki" or in Ellis Island because illiterate Jewish immigrants signed with an O instead of an X, do you think The Danny would have cheered for a team called the Washington Kikes? What about the Washington Treblinkers? Obviously, we know such names for a team would've never made it past 1948, and very few places in the world would allow such names to be used.

Or how about the "n-word"? Where does it come from? There are a number of theories as to where it came from; to me the most obvious is the good ol' boy pronunciation of "negro" (like fellow/feller, or yellow/yeller), which is Latin for "black", and "black" being a logical description of a pale European first laying eyes to someone from Sub-Saharan Africa, just like the 1699 European who first laid eyes on the American natives. It used to be that "Negroid" was the anthropological name for the race of people who originated from Sub-Saharan Africa, now it is Congoid because the word Negroid is considered racist.

So regardless of the origin, those 2 words went from description to bona fide racial slurs, and we (meaning society in general) recognize them as such, and therefore avoid their usage (if we are not part of said ethnic groups).

Unless you are around 70 years old, you and I were born in an era in which both words are defined as racial slurs. But think about why we define those terms as racial slurs today. I am not going to type a long manifesto, but the gist of it is, neither the Jewish people or Congoids were isolated in reservations and forgotten after what happened to them as races, nor vilified them in countless movies and TV shows.

Now, for the record, I am a person who thinks racial slurs are laughable, as you don't get to define what you are, only who you are. Yet, I can understand why such words would stir certain feelings in different people, and as such, I think we should give Native Americans the same courtesy as we give to any other ethnic group. Simple as that.

And a quick edit to add: both of those images I'd consider slurs. I don't get the fascination with using such names either.
We just have different approaches. I look at it from 10,000 feet because I understand that if you put 100 people in a room and ask them an opinion question you will not get the same answer 100 times. We typically elect and govern based on majority consensus until someone decides that the 'right thing to do' contradicts that. If we as a society took action on each and every item that someone 'says' offends them what would the world look like? The Red Skins wouldn't be the Red Skins, we wouldn't be the Saints, and Saltines would fall into a different category.

I can guarantee you that I can find 5 people that are proud to be called coon-ass and 5 people that are offended by being called coon-ass. Which side do you take? Why does a side need to be taken? I agree that slurs are laughable and insignificant, if you feel that way, then why take a stand?

Its contradictory for me as a parent to tell my children to turn the other cheek to offensive remarks but then support action of our government in regards to offensive remarks.

Most people hear words every day and are not offended by them until someone with an agenda tells them that they should be offended. Are we actually going to legislate on minority opinion or manufactured emotions? The protection of the RedSkin name and logo has been voided, to stay true to that precedent the government would have to drop all protections on any music, movies, or books that contain the N-word or a variation of that word.

This is a slippery slope my friend, one where there is no winner and if we keep giving credibility to a handful of people with an agenda we will be but a soup-sandwich with no credibility.

As a society we preach the need to evolve to a utopian standard so we may all live in harmony, but fall prey to basic human emotion. Until we can get past primal reaction there will be no evolution. Part of that is being able to look into someones eyes and say "it really doesn't affect you or matter, get passed it"

On the flip side being offended by seeing gays interact in public is found offensive to some, albeit through ignorance, but offensive all the same. They need to be told "it doesn't pertain to you" as well.

saintfan and Danno like this.

If you play stupid games, you win stupid prizes.

Like and vote https://www.facebook.com/pages/Charl...44287815781246

Last edited by TheOak; 08-21-2014 at 08:25 AM..
TheOak is offline  
Old 08-21-2014, 11:00 AM   #16
Merces Letifer
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 3,731
Re: Sims and Dungy won't say Redskins in games

Originally Posted by TheOak View Post
Why does a side need to be taken? I agree that slurs are laughable and insignificant, if you feel that way, then why take a stand?

As a society we preach the need to evolve to a utopian standard so we may all live in harmony, but fall prey to basic human emotion. . Part of that is being able to look into someones eyes and say "it really doesn't affect you or matter, get passed it"


Apologies for the snip. I do agree with the general sentiment of what you are saying. I just wanted to touch on those two points.

Why take a stand? Equality. Why afford protection to certain ethnic groups but not others? Double standards are never conducive to utopian societies.
Tobias-Reiper is offline  
Old 08-21-2014, 12:10 PM   #17
10000 POST CLUB
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Cypress Tx.
Posts: 16,193
Re: Sims and Dungy won't say Redskins in games

Originally Posted by Tobias-Reiper View Post
Apologies for the snip. I do agree with the general sentiment of what you are saying. I just wanted to touch on those two points.

Why take a stand? Equality. Why afford protection to certain ethnic groups but not others? Double standards are never conducive to utopian societies.
Agreed.. I didn't interpret any snip at all, and hope you are not detecting any as well.

Equality however does not extend to only those who have endured hardships or mistreatment. When the "=" sign is used it means exactly that. If you are going to be mindful enough to not offend any one group then the same should apply to all groups. Even those that a person doesn't care for.

The underlined is precisely my point. If you start removing each and every item to make each and every group happy you will inevitably end up with nothing on your plate.

Take an ordinary meal for example:
Vegans want the meat out
Diabetics want the carbs and sugars out
Elderly cant handle the spices
Children do not want the vegetables
You can see where I am going with this....

At some point you have to look at all of the above groups and say "if you do not like it, do not eat it". Left to my wife she would cook 3 separate meals, when I intervene things just get pushed to the side of the plate. Humans are amazingly adept to dealing with adversity as long as they do not start relying on someone to do it for them.

The only true equality is when no one is catered to and everyone must deal with how they feel about each others expressions on their own. But this all boils down to the misinterpretation of the First Amendment doesn't it? The First Amendment prevents prosecution for expression but protects persecution because persecution is speech and a form of expression.

A person can not be jailed for saying negative things about the Government and the person that will inevitably call him an idiot is protected as well... Its a beautiful thing.

Poor form has never been illegal.

If you play stupid games, you win stupid prizes.

Like and vote https://www.facebook.com/pages/Charl...44287815781246

Last edited by TheOak; 08-21-2014 at 12:12 PM..
TheOak is offline  
Old 08-21-2014, 01:52 PM   #18
10000 POST CLUB
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Cypress Tx.
Posts: 16,193
Re: Simms, Dungy say they will not use term 'Redskins' this season

Case and point

What is an "Acadiana American"? I have never heard that term in my life LOL!
Louisiana official threatens Texas legislator with lawsuit over ‘coonass’ remark - Texas Politics
TheOak is offline  
Old 08-21-2014, 03:44 PM   #19
Merces Letifer
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 3,731
Re: Sims and Dungy won't say Redskins in games

Originally Posted by TheOak View Post
Agreed.. I didn't interpret any snip at all, and hope you are not detecting any as well.

Equality however does not extend to only those who have endured hardships or mistreatment. When the "=" sign is used it means exactly that. If you are going to be mindful enough to not offend any one group then the same should apply to all groups. Even those that a person doesn't care for.

The underlined is precisely my point. If you start removing each and every item to make each and every group happy you will inevitably end up with nothing on your plate.

Take an ordinary meal for example:
Vegans want the meat out
Diabetics want the carbs and sugars out
Elderly cant handle the spices
Children do not want the vegetables
You can see where I am going with this....

At some point you have to look at all of the above groups and say "if you do not like it, do not eat it". Left to my wife she would cook 3 separate meals, when I intervene things just get pushed to the side of the plate. Humans are amazingly adept to dealing with adversity as long as they do not start relying on someone to do it for them.

The only true equality is when no one is catered to and everyone must deal with how they feel about each others expressions on their own. But this all boils down to the misinterpretation of the First Amendment doesn't it? The First Amendment prevents prosecution for expression but protects persecution because persecution is speech and a form of expression.

A person can not be jailed for saying negative things about the Government and the person that will inevitably call him an idiot is protected as well... Its a beautiful thing.

Poor form has never been illegal.

And I agree with you. Yet, why not extend the same courtesy to Native Americans we extend Jewish and African Americans? Because the other alternative, the "unslurring" of such words as kike, ******, chink, spic, etc. that's not going to happen any time soon. Either all or none the asterisks
Tobias-Reiper is offline  
Old 08-22-2014, 09:29 AM   #20
10000 POST CLUB
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Cypress Tx.
Posts: 16,193
Re: Sims and Dungy won't say Redskins in games

Originally Posted by Tobias-Reiper View Post
And I agree with you. Yet, why not extend the same courtesy to Native Americans we extend Jewish and African Americans? Because the other alternative, the "unslurring" of such words as kike, ******, chink, spic, etc. that's not going to happen any time soon. Either all or none the asterisks

Please understand one thing about my views, I do not recognize hyphenated Americans. One very small example of why is that it is used incorrectly and ignorantly. When Theresa Heinz Kerry said she was African-American the black community was up in arms because she was white. Africa is a country, not a race. She was born in Maputo Mozambique and also qualifies for all scholarships designated for African-Americans.

On your reply and Why? Two separate reasons.

1. You can't selectively protect the groups you want to protect. You protect all or none. See below how it applies to your question.

2. Jewish is an ethnoreligious group and not a race, people from Israel are Israelites, or Israelis. Protect one religion and you have to protect them ALL. Including Pastafarians <--- you open the gates for people to start making things up and since it's based on belief or feeling you can't disprove it.

There are 4 races:
1) Mongoloid.
2) Caucasoid.
3) Negroid.
4) Australoid

The Klan and White Supremacists are groups also, do you want to extend legislation to protect them from being offended? I don't.

We are now full circle back to protecting 7Bn opinions. Everyone has one and they all vary.

The reason you can not unslur those words is because you cannot legislate culture. Personally I find chewing food with the mouth open offensive, any scholarship based wholly or partially on race/creed/ or ethnic background offensive. There is no needed for legislation to effect either. If someone wants to eat like an animal, let them. If a bigot of any race wants to use their money to support their race, it's their business. If a private Country Club is all white or a Black Miss America pageant is all black, so be it. It may seem I have wandered off topic but I haven't, in a misguided effort to remove racial barriers there can't morally be any all white but all black is acceptable and promoted. That my friend is not equality.
Danno likes this.

If you play stupid games, you win stupid prizes.

Like and vote https://www.facebook.com/pages/Charl...44287815781246
TheOak is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules

LinkBacks (?)
LinkBack to this Thread: http://blackandgold.com/nfl/67543-simms-dungy-say-they-will-not-use-term-redskins-season.html
Posted By For Type Date Hits
Simms, Dungy say they will not use term 'Redskins' this season This thread Refback 08-19-2014 02:41 PM 1


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:50 AM.


Copyright 1997 - 2014 - BlackandGold.com
no new posts