How Times Change
By Erick Posted in 2008 — Comments (177) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Back in 1984, I was in fourth grade. We called American Indians, well, American Indians.
In 1986, I was in sixth grade and our teacher insisted we use the term "Native American" when talking about American Indians. That seems to have stayed fairly consistent for the last twenty years.
In 2007, courtesy of Barack Obama, we now have a new designation for American Indians. They are . . . drum roll please . . . First Americans.
But, as I pointed out when we made the switch in sixth grade, shouldn't they be First North Americans? In my mind, George Washington is the first American (NSFW).
« Dueling June Obama fundraising claims? — Comments (2) | Your Papers, Please — Comments (14) »
How Times Change 177 Comments (0 topical, 177 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
Actually, the continent was called America before the United States of America existed...since 1507. So I think all the terms that don't use the word "Indian" are actually probably technically accurate...India is a pretty far from America.
yup. And "Indian" was a mistake (if I've got my history right), because Columbus thought he had arrived in the East Indes. I think "First Americans" is pretty good, considering the understandable objection some have to "native" (implying that the rest of us were born in other nations). If "First North Americans" weren't so darn long I'd like that most, since "American" obviously can also refer to a U.S. citizen.
Anyone from either North or South America can rightly claim the label American.
...a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right...
---Thomas Paine---
That new term isn't bad. I like it much better than "Native Americans," because Native Americans implied that us Americans of European descent are somehow foreign, despite having roots on the continent hundreds of years old. First Americans or Aboriginal Americans is a better term than that, IMO. It's also better than "Indians," as it makes clear to which group of people you are referring.
your just a wet behind the ears kid.
"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle
Thats funny, I noticed the age thing too. I was way off. Although I'm not that much older so I won't go with the wet behind the ears thing.
absentee
Apparently the government term up there for the tribes is First Nations.
I also think streiff is dead on. This is an improvement.
HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Reality: Thompson/Romney Dream: Santorum/Watts.
Your account name is about the same size as streiff's, and I guess I only saw the size and the 'ff' and went from there, heh.
Sorry,
HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Reality: Thompson/Romney Dream: Santorum/Watts.
And while it's a little dicey to say, my favorite by far is 'Americans'. I know, I know, there are treaties, the BIA, and other nuisances. If the topic comes up because of ancestry, then I guess I'm Anglo-Cherokee with a healthy dash of German. But in the final analysis, I'm American.
To somebody above, in reference to the American continents, and the 'everybody being American' thought that comes with it. That may be fine in a technical sense, and I don't disagree. But it's my understanding in my pretty substantial interaction with Latino-ancestry people, many of whom were born in Central America, that 'America' and 'Americans' pretty much tend to refer to the United States and its citizens. My 2 cents.
It's war -- so when can we start shooting back at the enemy Democrats?
I know that technically Indians are all Americans right now, but it wasn't the case when they first encountered European settlers. Therefore it seems wrong to me to call Indians Native or First Americans. Let's face it, Indians are not exactly native to America either!
Now, my question what do Indians call themselves? I assume by the names of their tribes. The next question is do Indians consider it offending when we call them Indians? If during sixteenth, seventeenth, eighteenth, and nineteenth centuries none of Indians found it offending to be called Indians, then I see no reason to stop calling them what we have always called them...Indians!
Dan
------------
Daniel 2:20 And he [God] changeth the times and seasons: he removeth kings, and setteth up kings: he giveth wisdom unto the wise, and knowledge to them that know understanding.
their presumed, mostly white, non-Indian, liberal champions when it comes to the use of the word Indians or Indian mascots at schools.
I'll be glad when Blacks rise up en mass to their white liberal plantation masters and the black race pimps that presume to speak for them.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson
...and sometimes "Indian" or "Injun." And I despise the climate that has caused schools and sports teams to alter their mascots because some judge or commissioner of European heritage has decided that he knows what offends Indians better than they do.
Liberal. Arrogance.
Based on your comment and Mike's above, I'm wondering if your main argument is that native Americans (or whatever) generally don't mind the team names and mascots or that it doesn't matter if they do or not. Sounds like you have as your premise that most of them are ok with it, and I'm wondering (1) if you have any polling on which you base that premise, and (2) if your argument is dependant on that premise (in other words, if most DID/DO take offense at it, would that matter enough to you to change your position on such names and mascots).
in which being labeled a racist is akin to being a leper in past centuries, if there were any evidence that the descendents of those peoples encountered by the European explorers from 1492 on, were offended, then there would be no schools remaining using mascots from their culture.
Secondly, wouldn't you be flattered if a school chose a mascot that identified with your group?
I would love it.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson
_wouldn't you be flattered if a school chose a mascot that identified with your group?_
Hmm, let's see...if Germany had schools with a stupid-looking Hassidic Rabbi prancing around as the mascot for the Jewnoses soccer team? Whaddaya think, Mike?
one that was chosen to offend? no
Teams choose mascots they revere.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson
Pardon the pun, but you've moved the goalposts, Mike. You asked:
wouldn't you be flattered if a school chose a mascot that identified with your group?
I think I answered the question. Not necessarily. Depends on the history of the people in that nation or community and the nature of the representation (flattering or goofy or other denigrating representation) they are given by the name and mascot. Native Americans have a history of pretty awful treatment by white Americans (not in recent decades, but in past centuries). So I can see how a name such as Redskin or a mascot that was a cartoon of a bright red, buck-toothed, goofy-looking "Indian" could be offensive. You asked me a hypothetical and I aswered it with an answer that drew relevant parallels. You get it, right?
notion that the Washington football team should change its name. Same at Florida State and many other venues.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson
Just to break this down:
1) Can you at least see how an ethnic group could be legitimately offended, at least hypothetically, per my example (the soccer team in Germany), and perhaps by the Cleveland Indians mascot (animated) or the name Redskins?
2) Do you have polling to support the assertion by some that native Americans, in general, don't take offense at any such team names and mascots?
3) Would it matter to you if most (or a substantial minority of) native Americans DO/DID take offense? Would it matter enough to consider wanting some names changed?
Is there a right to not be offended by they activities of others?
...a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right...
---Thomas Paine---
Re: #1, did you really think about that one? If there were a nation that had massacred Christians, pushed them off the land, wiped out their food supply (buffalo for the native Americans), etc. and then had a sports team with a mascot who was some goofy-looking version of Christ looking like he was nailed to a cross and wearing a big, sh*t-eating grin (like the Cleveland Indians cartoon mascot), you can't see how some Christians would take offense?
Or what about my example in Germany of a soccer team called the Jewnoses with a goofy looking rabbi as the mascot. You can't see how any Jews could be reasonably offended by that?
Did you misunderstand my question, not really think about it, or are you really serious about that answer?
aren't too far from that. Their "mascot" is basically a caricature of a priest. I haven't heard too much (any) objection to it, and it doesn't bother me a lick.
Furthermore, I am 1/8 Cherokee (great-grandfather was full-blood), and I haven't heard a soul in my family express one lick of objection to any "native American-inspired" mascots (I prefer the term "American" personally). In fact, it really ticked me off when the Univ. of IL got rid of Chief Illiniwek. And I haven't sent any hate mail to Daimler Chrysler over their use of my tribe's name (Jeep Cherokee).
Would I object if someone made fun of Jesus? Yes. Would I start bombing buildings and issuing fatwahs? No.
...when they see me they'll say, "There goes Loren Wallace,
the greatest thing to ever climb into a race car."
Would I object if someone made fun of Jesus? Yes. Would I start bombing buildings and issuing fatwahs? No.
Geez Louise! Who the heck is talking about that?? We're just talking about whether or not many among an ethnic group can have a legitimate gripe against an offensive team name or mascot and whether or not the offense they take is reason enough to change the name as a courtesy; we're not talking about the reaction of Islamists to Danish cartoons, etc.
So if some team somewhere in this country or in another country made fun of Jesus, you'd be offended. If it were some sports team in, say, Detroit (where I think there are a lot of Muslims) that made fun of Jesus via the team name and mascot, would you think the decent thing for them to do would be to change the name or mascot, and might you even try to apply public pressure (say, boycotting advertisers) to achieve that?
LIKE. That's why its a mascot. They want to SHARE the identity.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson
And you think that means that the group represented by the name/mascot can't have a legitimate reason to be offended?
themselves with them unless they hate the others or hate themselves, neither of which would be legitimate.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson
Well, with respect, Mike, I think it's very presumptuous of you to assume that just because people don't mean to offend (and actually mean a positive association) that their choices of team names and mascots couldn't cause legitimate offense. Not everyone is aware of what may legitimately offend members of other ethnic or religious groups. Heck, I didn't know until recently how offensive Muslims considered it to draw an image of Muhammad (and PLEASE, let's not go off on that tangent. I'm just using it as an example).
I just don't think that kind of offense mongering is legitimate.
HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Reality: Thompson/Romney Dream: Santorum/Watts.
So that hypothetical German soccer team called the Jewnoses with the goofy rabbi mascot running around in a comical way, imitating Jewish customs in a silly way to get laughs from the crowd, you don't think Jewish people would have a legitimate gripe about that? You don't think the decent thing for that team to do would be to change their name and mascot? Seriously??
HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Reality: Thompson/Romney Dream: Santorum/Watts.
Yeah, it was what I asked. See my Question #1 and refer upthread to what I was talking about re: "the German soccer team". Perhaps you missed it. So what's your answer?
First you asked me if these situations can conceivably create legitimate grievances to carry. I said no.
Then you asked me if we could think poorly of people who use the traditional European anti-Jewry as symbols. That's a different question and a different situation entirely.
Basically before you push this further you'd better be prepared to tell us who the American Hitler was, and cite examples of anti-Indian pogroms.
HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Reality: Thompson/Romney Dream: Santorum/Watts.
I would love to play for The Saviors™, that would frickin rule! I don't know if I'd want the happy white-guy Jesus (with the Thumbs Up) or the authentic Jew Jesus, but no thanks to the mopey-sad Catholic Jesus.
___________________________________
Two thirds of the world is covered by water,
the other third is covered by Champ Bailey.
offend, but only in Gaza!
Don't need a poll to know that the lack of mass movement by Indians to pressure teams to not use their mascots is due to the fact that teams pick mascots they revere and so that they are mostly flattered.
It would matter in most Indians did not like to be flattered.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson
How about these school mascot names: Spartans, Colonials, Vikings, Norsemen, The Horde, Cavilers, etc. do they offend? Does it matter?
...a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right...
---Thomas Paine---
Eastern Michigan U changed their name from the Hurons to the Eagles, even though the Eagles in the area objected! The state is now considering changing the name of the river running through town to the Eagle River.
My Chippawas of Central Michigan U considered bowing to political correctness, but the local Chippawa tribe asked them to keep the name! CMU kept the name!
So far as I know, no one thought to ask the actual wolverines what they thought about the idea, probably because you don't want to ever get that close to a wolverine in the first place.
But I suspect they won't really care. They have enough good things going on in their lives, and no problems with insecurity.
Nicknames liberals wish schools would adopt:
The Marxists
The We Hate Dead White Males
The Freidans
The Amorals
The Michael Moores
The Gorbies
The Maos
The Fidels
The Chavezes
The UNs
This list does not require the willing suspension of disbelief.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson
The Breck Girls
The Universal Health Coverers
The Filthy Rich
The Freezer Bribers
The Free Speech If Your America-Hating Atheists
The Mad Murthas
The Bush Derangement Syndromes
It's war -- so when can we start shooting back at the enemy Democrats?
The Free Speech If Your America-Hating Atheists
Who would they play against, the Atheist-Hating Self-Righteous People of Faith -- with you as the latter's quarterback?
You want to call me out personally, then?
It's war -- so when can we start shooting back at the enemy Democrats?
EXCUSE ME?? You refer to "America-Hating Atheists" and I respond in kind and now you take great offense and say my response was "stupid and uncalled for"?? Care to explain that one to me?
If you had said "America-Hating Jews" and I responded with "America-Hating Christians" would you be equally oblivious to the symmetry?
And yeah, I am "calling you out personally" because you obviously felt free using an insulting and bigoted term like "America-Hating Atheists".
You're shutting up and listening. The original term used was:
The Free Speech If Your America-Hating Atheists
Should be "You're," but we'll fight that one later. Anyway, I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that "atheist" may be a reasonable descriptor of you. If so, still, the only way that I can see that you should be offended at this level of offensensitivity -
- So Speaketh the Moderator -
- is if you are in fact an atheist who is only in favor of free speech when it's done by people who hate America. If you are not an atheist who is only in favor of free speech when it's done by people who hate America, then you have no kick coming; and if you are an atheist who is only in favor of free speech when it's done by people who hate America, then we're happy to offend you.
The subject is now closed.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
Am I not entitled to respond to either your assertions or the subsequent comment by E Pluribus below? Obviously it's your call as moderator, but it seems unfair for you to make such assertions and they deny me the ability to respond -- i.e., to present an argument on the subject that you feel refutes my point and then to declare the subject closed so I can't address your argument. Needless to say, I find your reasoning fundamentally flawed, but I won't explain why because you've prohibited a response (so this comment should not be mistaken as a continuation of debate on that subject -- i.e, defying your order -- but rather a comment/request regarding your closing of the subject). By the way, I tried to email you to discuss this matter offline, but you are not accepting emails, so commenting here is my only means of addressing to your decision.
So are you some kind of America-hating atheist? Is that you?
If so, then I did not embellish your title WHATSOEVER. I named a football team after you.
If not, then what do you care? If you want to defend America-hating atheists, then so be it. Defend the ACLU, the MoveOn crowd, ACT, and pretty much the Democrat establishment.
I'm just guessing here, but are you some kind of atheist? Are you assuming that I equated atheists with America-haters? If so, you assumed wrong, and you can read through every post I've ever made on RedState, and You'll find no evidence to back that up.
But either way, whatever the bug up your rear is, you did not respond in kind.
You made a title, which you specifically applied to me personally. It included
Atheist-hating -- demonstrably untrue
Self-righteous -- may be true, but THAT's a personal insult
People of Faith -- the only thing you got right
It's war -- so when can we start shooting back at the enemy Democrats?
I'll not incur the wrath of the dreaded Barnacle Brain Jack if I can help it.
It's war -- so when can we start shooting back at the enemy Democrats?
"Hillary's Snake Oilers"
"Hillary's China Clipper" (we must give Hsu his due)
"Obama's Tax Pirates" (in honor of the day :>)
"Johnny's Ambulance Chasers"
"The Haute Couturiers"
"The (Private) Jets"
"Limousine Warriors"
lol. I like "the Maos" the best!
But you're missing the point. Liberals would like to just give each team an equal score and forego the nasty competition thing.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson
I'm only 3/8, and I never ran with the bunch, kinda grew up in the average Texas semi-rural culture. But here's my 2-cents.
Tribal ID more than anything else (I'm Cherokee), otherwise 'Indian' or American Indian. Rarely offended by that, nor by Redskin either (take a guess which team's football jersey BY FAR the biggest seller). Not really involved with the caricature the national scene/media give to Indians. Most don't really care one way or the other about 'Native American' as a term. We note the obvious inaccuracy of that term, being that the inhabitants that the settlers found were the 3rd wave of immigrants over the land bridge.
There is a class of Indians that is hyper-politicized, and way into the BIA racket, and in it for notoriety or money or favors or pity. I never give those people the time of day. But those kind are all about that 'Native American' tag, get offended by the Atlanta Braves 'tomahawk chop', and so on. I think they are only that way because the lefty jerk-wads have made it a profit industry for them.
So like I said, I'm not totally in tune with the culture, but I've been around it some as a semi-insider, and that's what I see.
It's war -- so when can we start shooting back at the enemy Democrats?
Use the tribe name. Up here it is Chippewa. Some use the term Indian as kind of a self-derogatory slang, much like some rappers would use n[*]gger today.
The best bet is to go with whatever they call themselves, if they care to make a distinction at all. There is no one term that universally fits and I guess I don't see any reason why anyone would really seek one.
It is a mistake to think you can solve any major problems just with potatoes.
Maybe Washington was the First National, then.
Anyway,"First Americans" as a descriptor of American Indians was in common usage during the early 20th century. I heard it used years ago by elders in my family. Glad to see some ethnic labels from that era are retro-chic.
That "George Washington" cartoon is great! It's completely absurd, but it's incredibly hilarious. Good job.
But shouldn't there be a content warning with that link? Not suitable for work really doesn't seem to cover it, especially if someone doesn't know that acronym.
absentee
already proven that Caucasion skeletons found on the west coast are thousands of years older than any of the so-called "Indians". Of coures if the "Indians" were left alone and the white man never came to these shores, there'd be nothing here but tepees.
Neighbor, do yourself a favor and read up a lot more on pre-Columbian America before it becomes a prerequisite for getting your account turned back on.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
Moe, I think that he might be referring to this.
...a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right...
---Thomas Paine---
It might be the lack of hair, but that reconstruction reminds me of Patrick Stewart.
HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Reality: Thompson/Romney Dream: Santorum/Watts.
...a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right...
---Thomas Paine---
you're the one who needs to do a lot more reading on the "pre-columbian America", not me. I simply stated a fact.
Ignorance is bliss.
2,000 word essay comparing... hmm, Chinook, Iroquois, Cherokee, Pueblo, Maya, Tlaxcalan, Inca, and Creek should do for a start. Pick four (Cherokee and Creek should not be picked together) and compare 'em all to the Sioux. Try to concentrate on relative technological and cultural development.
Write it up, send it in and maybe we'll turn your account back on.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
[Retread. Disregard. - Moe Lane]
Just because of your own ignorance on the subject you found it necessary to suspend my account? Long live free speech on Redstate! An essay? And 2000 words? Well, that would only take a couple sentences considering they did not contribute to any technological advances whatsoever. Who are you anyway? An admin or mod or what? Just wondering because it seems you are using a power trip to compensate for something I don't even want to think about.
Anyway, I am fine with you deleting my account; I simply wanted to sign on to give my reply. I also tend to be an independent conservative minded person and just stop by here once in awhile to see what your Bushbot site has to say.
So long.
is if the others meant to offend. One should not be offended at others' ignorance. That is not legitimate.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson
Even if that's the case (and it partly is, although it would be considerate for someone to check into it BEFORE choosing a name/mascot), once it is brought to one's attention that others are offended and have a legitimate reason to be offended, ignorance can no longer be claimed, right?
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson
means action must be taken. And it doesn't. Frankly, in 99.99% of the cases, most people could care less if offense was taken. People in this country need to grow some thicker skin.
...when they see me they'll say, "There goes Loren Wallace,
the greatest thing to ever climb into a race car."
You said you'd be offended if someone made fun of Jesus. So if some team did so via some mascot you considered outrageously disrespectful, would you complain? Would you think it decent of them to change their mascot? Would you be further offended if they told you to grow some thicker skin?
I am offended by what people say & do constantly. Do I expect them to change their behavior? No. It happens. People mock Christians and Christianity, native Americans, blacks, Jews, etc. non-stop and denigrate they are or what they believe. But that's the way life is. I'm not filing any lawsuits against them (or as I said before, blowing things up). And that's the point. Being offended isn't a fatal issue. It won't kill me or anyone else. You live with it and move along to something more important. There's too much concern these days about hurt feelings. (Speaking generally to the whiners...) Stop whining and go do something worthwhile. Those who raise a ruckus over it need to get a life.
And by the way, you didn't respond to the fact that the San Diego Padres are already mocking priests, yet there's no uproar over it. And there's no big stink from the Irish that Notre Dame mocks them. Some of us apparently figure there are better things to do than obsess about sports team mascots.
...when they see me they'll say, "There goes Loren Wallace,
the greatest thing to ever climb into a race car."
I think the above are so much a part of our judeo-christian culture that the very idea of offense is quite weak for most Americans. These are the Americans that don't get invited to appear very often on MSM talk shows that constantly seek ratings by trying to gin up offense or covering the Left's 24/7 efforts at same. The victim culture.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson
As far as the argument about Indian mascots... has anyone ever heard of the "Fighting Irish"? A mascot name that highlights the most negative stereotype about an ethnic group!
They made so much money selling t-shirts - mostly from white people who didn't missed the point; they just didn't care, much - that they set up a scholarship fund.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
The Fighting Irish referred to an actual group of individuals.
Personally I don't think that most N.A. derived mascots are bad. They represent fierceness and are meant in a complimentary fashion.
On the other hand I don't really think this is terribly flattering...
I also don't think the term Redskins is terribly appropriate. Would anyone here even considered going up to a N.A. and calling him a redskin?
Is this a massive issue that needs to be dealt with? Of course not. But I don't think it is unreasonable for some to take offense to it.
There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy
also some black, people are when they find offensive actual photographs or accurate depictions of actual black people. They often refer to the "big lip" stereotype. What they are telling is that THEY find offensive the actual appearence of blacks with big lips. They are the ones with the problem.
The Cleveland Indian is a cartoon much like the Fighting Irish. Cartoons are meant to be exxagerations. I don't find red skin to be offensive myself.
And I am preparing the lawsuit against Q on the "wow" vioolation...
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson
Right. And it's interesting that some here, based on their own personal views or anecdotal experiences, and lacking any polling data, readily conclude that native Americans generally don't find these names/mascots offensive, and then, it seems that even under the "hypothetical" that they are incorrect on that assumption, feel that it wouldn't matter anyway if a majority or significant minority of native Americans were offended. "People should grow thicker skin" exemplifies the response, yet the same people saying that would have (I presume, and no one has told me I'm wrong) an entireley different reaction to other degrading names/mascots that they happen to find offensive. Kind of hard to find a consistent principle from those who simply dismiss anyone's offense at all native-American-related names/mascots as overly sensitive and not worthy of consideration.
HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Reality: Thompson/Romney Dream: Santorum/Watts.
I missed your question earlier, but I assume it's the "Hitler" question. First, you are incorrect re: the question I had asked you, but never mind. As for your misguided question, you are missing the point. Let me explain. When discussing principles, sometimes hypotheticals are presented to test the consistency of that principle, and sometimes these hypotheticals are deliberately crafted to be extreme situations -- again, to test the principle. Doing so is just a starting point -- i.e., to establish whether the principle is being applied by someone in some pure way or whether someone is really putting forth some different principle and/or if the argument is really over a matter of degree rather than pure principle. Are you gettin' this? So no, I'm not saying that America did to native Americans the equivalent of what Nazi Germany did to the Jews. Now that you're hopefully past that misunderstanding, perhaps you'll answer my question: Would you find that German soccer team's name and mascot offensive, or at least think that it would be legit for Jews to take offense at it? And do you think the decent thing for that team to do would be to change the name and mascot?
Assuming your answer is "yes" for all of the above (Am I going too far out on a limb with that assumption? Sure hope not.), then we've established that it is POSSIBLE for a team name and/or mascot to be legitimately offensive and worthy of change (and please do answer the question). Now we can discuss and either agree or disagree on whether or not, given the history of the treatment of native Americans and the specific names and mascots in question, it would be reasonable or not for some native Americans to take offense and if that offense warrants changing the name out of consideration. So whaddaya say, Neilster?
I came up with a neat way to put it to you: I don't think a mascot can *create* an offense, but it can *aggravate* one.
Jews in Europe, and particular in Germany, have already been offended. Your logo example there aggravates an existing offense. It doesn't create one out of whole cloth.
Today's grievance mongers insist that a lack of respect for 'sensitivity' issues is itself an offense that must be rectified. That I reject.
HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Reality: Thompson/Romney Dream: Santorum/Watts.
... I've ever seen.
So, in the context of the above discussion, you feel in the history of America's dealings with the Native Americans there has been no offense.
Please tell us who the American Hitler was, and document for us some anti-Indian pogroms.
HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Reality: Thompson/Romney Dream: Santorum/Watts.
The only way to create offense is to have a massive, industrialized Holocaust against a group of people. Nothing else can "create offense". What a telling point Neil.
Or are you repeatedly asking who the American Hitler is, after its been answered there isn't one, because that's all you have?
Wow, I'm away for a few hours and I miss so much that's, let's say (to be relatively diplomatic) worthy of a response.
Neil, either I'm really, REALLY not getting what you're saying or your language in that comment is somewhere between that of George "1984" Orwell and Bill "meaning of is is" Clinton. Let me try to decipher what you're saying, and please tell me if I'm understanding you:
To review, I asked you:
So that hypothetical German soccer team called the Jewnoses with the goofy rabbi mascot running around in a comical way, imitating Jewish customs in a silly way to get laughs from the crowd, you don't think Jewish people would have a legitimate gripe about that? You don't think the decent thing for that team to do would be to change their name and mascot? Seriously??
You didn't answer, so I asked again, referring back to that hypothetical:
Would you find that German soccer team's name and mascot offensive, or at least think that it would be legit for Jews to take offense at it? And do you think the decent thing for that team to do would be to change the name and mascot?
Now, your answer above seems to contend the following:
- No it would not be reasonable for a Jewish person to be offended by that German soccer team, the Jewnoses, with their goofy rabbi mascot running around clowning by mocking Jewish customs as the German crowd laughs.
- The reason for contention #1 above is that the team name and mascot cannot be offensive, because the Jews have already been "offended"...by the murder of 6 million of their people (do I need a parenthetical exclamation point here, or would that be snarky?). Yeah, that IS pretty offensive. And of course, that's the only possible "offensive" act possible in this picture. Ergo, it is literally impossible to cause reasonable offense on the part of any group that has suffered persecution or other mistreatment, because the "offense" (in this example, the Holocaust) is already over and done with. So any member of such a group who is offended by anything is, by definition, being unreasonable.
Please tell me I'm wrong and I'm just missing something I really should have seen (and provide a reasonable clarification/explanation, of course).
Basically BrooksRob is shilling for the Americans as genocidal maniacs crowd, but doesn't want to come out and admit it, so he dances, and dances, and dances, but I won't dance with him anymore to this tune.
HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Reality: Thompson/Romney Dream: Santorum/Watts.
Cop-out Alert combined with completely baseless, and yes OFFENSIVE and INAPPROPRIATE accusations Alert!! Hey Moe, do we have a single standard or a double standard? Can a guy say that I'm "shilling for the Americans as genocidal maniacs crowd, but doesn't want to come out and admit it" and get no comment, let alone warning from you, while others say things equally or less offensive, completely baseless and uncalled for and get a warning or worse?
Neil, I realize you got caught saying something utterly absurd and want to exit any way possible, but you are WAY out of line. WAY OUT OF LINE. If you want to question my patriotism and love of America again and you're anywhere within a couple hundred miles of Manhattan we can arrange to meet and you can tell me to my face if you have the guts. I would LOVE for you to do it. Otherwise, grow up and shut up with that outrageous bullsh*t.
Brooks, I think you might feel lonely in some of these arguments you have and I just wanted to let you know, you are usually right and it is beneficial for this site to have your yeoman's effort at bringing coherent and consistent logic to bear on some of these issues.
Flyerhawk, benjjneb, and BrooksRob all agree. Surprise, surprise, surprise.
HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Reality: Thompson/Romney Dream: Santorum/Watts.
It's not like clarity of expression and consistency of thought are their hallmarks. However, they are fun to watch.
Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.
oooh, just soooo witty, Sirloin. And thanks for your immense intellectual contribution to this topic and debate (and others). We're all the better for it.
You far more than most what with varying thresholds.
Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.
If they are both liberals, I rather doubt they agree with me on all of: supporting the Iraq war, aggressiveness on GWOT and use of military in general, free trade / free markets, very large cuts in entitlement benefits and non-Defense discretionary spending, opposition to race-based affirmative action, strong support for cops and aggressive tactics, etc. (and if they do agree with me on all that, they're not liberals, other than perhaps in the sense of classic liberalism, which is a different animal than "lefty" liberalism). But why concern youself with such details, Neil. Better to believe what you feel good believing and say what is cathartic and makes you more popular here among like-minded folks.
It's just so gosh darn amazing how often you're on their side in debates around here. Arguing with you never feels like arguing with, say, gamecock or Paul Cella. I don't feel like I'm arguing with a rightist, because I have lefty positions coming at me.
HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Reality: Thompson/Romney Dream: Santorum/Watts.
Hint: Your perceptions and reality don't seem to correlate particularly strongly. I am libertarian on some social issues, perhaps most (and conservative on other social issues). Other than that, you have absolutely no reason to think I'm a liberal. I'm a Defense / Use-of-force conservative and a TRUE fiscal conservative and economic conservative. Good luck finding evidence to the contrary.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson
I'm having enough trouble getting anyone agree that a hypothetical German soccer team called the Jewnoses with a goofy-looking rabbi mascot clowning around mocking Jewish customs for the laughing crowd would be legitimately offensive to Jews -- and you're demanding a real life example?! The only one who even kinda sorta -- well, pretended to answer my question was Neil, and it seems (as best I can decipher his language) that his answer is that it would NOT be reasonable for a Jewish person to be offended by that team name/mascot, much less for there to be any real reason for that team to consider changing its name as a courtesy. No one else even bothered to answer, unless I missed it (and by all means, I'm all ears). If we can't even agree on an extreme hypothetical like that, why bother getting into closer calls? We have no principle to work with. Have YOU answered those those questions re: the German team that I've asked on this thread repeatedly? If not, why didn't you offer an answer, and what is your answer?
point one, it should be evenly enforced. I can see an example of a deliberate attack on christians or jews being "protected" as free speech.
point two, it has to be deliberately offensive. Making a team change their name from say Braves, or Warriors, which actually honors the spirit of native americans in not imo offensive.
Chief wahoo is.
"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle
kids do.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson
by Cheif Wahoo, you would know who he is.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson
I'm certainly not questioning anyone's free speech rights. I'm just talking about what is considerate.
On your point two, I disagree. Someone can be highly offensive without meaning to be (just ask my girlfriend...rimshot-crash cymbol. I'll be here all week. Try the veal). For example (and I'm reluctant to use this one lest it draw out all kinds of irrelevant, emotional responses), I had no idea until recently how offensive it was to Muslims to create an image of Muhammad. If I started a sports team, not meaning to be deliberately offensive, called the Fighting Muhammads with a Muhammad mascot and illustrated Muhammad logo, and some members of the Muslim community brought to my attention how offensive it was, I think the decent, considerate thing to do would be to change the mascot. The fact that I wasn't being DELIBERATELY offensive doesn't make it any less so, nor does it make it any more considerate of me to ignore the offense once it is brought to my attention. Of course, being deliberately offensive may make the difference between an innocent mistake or negligence (not checking into it) and being a total butthole (or somewhere in between), but it doesn't excuse consideration of the offense that occurs. Agree?
into a legal sphere here and I believe the correct presumption would be reasonableness. It might be reasonable that a caricature of any religious figure to be offensive, but not reasonable (to a majority of people) to think that calling someone brave is offensive. even if a tiny minority of troublemakers say they are offended.
"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle
First, I don't know if you mention legality just to introduce the concept of reasonableness, which is fine and useful, but just to be clear, I'm in no way suggesting anyone's right to be offensive be infringed (except for community obscenity standards as in the pornography question bs asked me for some reason).
Anyway, as for reasonableness, I totally agree that there can be names/mascots that offend some, but that the offense they take is not reasonable, or perhaps even (and this is a high burden IMO) that their numbers are so small relative to the number of people who would suffer from a change to a sufficient degree that even legitimate offense by a very small number of people may not justify a change on the basis of consideration and/or decency. I would never suggest that any team name/mascot that offended anybody in any way should be changed. What I have been objecting to in this thread is the seemingly absolute -- yet inconsistent on principle -- position of some that one being reasonably offended is impossible under any circumstances, or is clearly impossible for native Americans, or that it just doesn't matter and there is no possibility that the considerate thing to do is to change a name/mascot. Have you seen my German soccer team hypothetical in this thread? I got no answers other than one in which the answer seemed to be that it would NOT be reasonable for a Jewish person to be offended by a German soccer team called the Jewnoses with a goofy-looking rabbi mascot clowning around mocking Jewish mannerisms! If people (not you, others so far) can't even agree on that one, I don't see much hope for a reasonable discussion of tougher calls.
This is not a poll, it is a reference to a poll that was published in Sports Illustrated March 4, 2002. But John J Miller of National Review I think we can take as probably not inventing this poll.
And the upshot of that poll is that the whole Offense Industry, when it comes to American Indians, is once again trying to feed us a lot of cooked-up politically-correct baloney.
The meat of the article was....
Here's the most important finding: "Asked if high school and college teams should stop using Indian nicknames, 81 percent of Native American respondents said no. As for pro sports, 83 percent of Native American respondents said teams should not stop using Indian nicknames, mascots, characters, and symbols."
The poll also found that 75 percent of Native Americans don't think the use of these team names and mascots "contributes to discrimination." Opinion is divided about the tomahawk chop displayed at Atlanta Braves games: 48 percent "don't care" about it; 51 percent do care, but more than half of them "like it." The name "Redskins" isn't especially controversial either; 69 percent of Native Americans don't object to it. As a general rule, Indians on reservations were more sensitive about team names and mascots, but not to the point where a majority of them ever sided with the activists on these questions.
So, I'm sure this won't change your mind, but there it is...
It's war -- so when can we start shooting back at the enemy Democrats?
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson
Excuse me, Mike, but was it you or someone else who essentially said that the opinions of native Americans -- including whether or not a majority or significant minority of them are offended -- doesn't matter? If it wasn't you, no offense intended, and also, if polls show/showed at least a significant minority who were offended, WOULD that matter to you in terms of feeling at all bad about it or even considering the possibility that the name and/or mascot should changed as a courtesy -- let's say, even making the Cleveland Indians illustrated mascot just a bit less goofy looking?
still haven't seen a real life case offended by a majority, much less a legitimate real life case.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson
might just like goofy ole Wahoo?
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson
This was a bigger sample, and this poll comes from UPenn's Annenberg Public Policy Center.
Need more yet?
It's war -- so when can we start shooting back at the enemy Democrats?
polls that don't agree with his premise assuming you are sufficiently clever to actually discern it.
Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.
I'll check out the polls (haven't yet), and do a quick & dirty search for others (not that I would ever think any cherry-picking might be going on -- not saying it is; just saying it's possible), BUT it seemed to me that those who expressed an opinion on the matter said it WOULDN'T MATTER even if a significant minority or even majority of native Americans DO/DID take offense. So I'll check polls to learn more about the issue, but my sense is that most people on this thread this the question is moot anyway. Am I right? Anyone? Anyone?
And absolutely feel free to dig up any more that are out there
I don't care to get deep into the arguments between you guys [did I mention that I'm part Injun myself, and know the culture from partially the inside?], but IMO you were REALLY pushing the 'where are the polls, you guys are justifying yourselves without evidence' thing. I knew the polls were out there, because this topic has come up around the dinner table and I take great personal interest in it.
In my opinion, you are deeply, DEEPLY on the side of the 'offense industry' -- the people who go out of their way looking to be offended by something, you seem to want to cater to -- and this cuts cross-grained to everything that conservatives stand for.
Those are friendly words, you can be offended or not by them but I mean you well with them.
But when the clock strikes midnight and I again become E Pluribus Unum, there is another matter betwen us, and I'll just quote Sawyer from 'Lost' -- we ain't done, Zeke.
It's war -- so when can we start shooting back at the enemy Democrats?
First, if you think I'm one of those political correctness police types, you're wrong. For one thing, check out some of my past posts (diaries). And by the way, the political correctness thing, while more often coming from the left, sometimes comes from the right, too (from a different angle, of course). But neither do I shut myself off from considering the possibility that some goofy, buck-toothed, bright-red colored "Indian" illustration mascot (and tomahawk chopping stadium crowds and all that) could be legitimately offensive to some native Americans, or the possibility that a team called "Redskins" could be similarly offensive.
As for "pushing" for polls, I was just asking, because people were making assertions that are best validated with polling data and I wanted to know if they actually had such data. Seems reasonable to me.
The rest, and all the ugliness, seemed to grow out of my desire to ask people if they would really apply what they seemed to be presenting as some universal principle of "get over it" and "grow thicker skin" in ANY situation, or if they would agree that some situations can produce legitimate offense, and if so, we could have worked back from there to the specifics of these cases (otherwise, if we can't even agree that it boils down to specific facts and matters of degree, no sense in arguing the issue). People resisted answering my hypothetical instead of responding forthrightly due to whatever fear they had that they might be "giving an inch" or somehow get trapped, and that led to some unfriendliness.
Lastly, on the matter which Moe prohibited me from discussing with you further here (your "America-Hating Atheists" line), I'd welcome the opportunity to try to discuss it civilly with you via email. You know how to reach me via email if you wish to do so.
between "being offended" and "expecting action to be taken because of being offended." If I am offended by something, I don't necessarily expect someone to come swooping in to fix it. This is the same problem as stuff like public prayer (Don't like it? Don't listen. And don't attend any NASCAR races.), pornography (which based on a recent discussion, it seems like few here care whether Christians are offended by it), and other things that are sensitive to some but not others. The moral? GET OVER IT. I have to every day.
...when they see me they'll say, "There goes Loren Wallace,
the greatest thing to ever climb into a race car."
Nope, YOU obviously don't understand what I've written or simply prefer to make baseless assumptions and put words in my mouth. Some people being legitimately offended is obvbviously not necessarily enough of a reason for others to change the offensive practice or whatever, and I've never said, implied, suggested (etc.) that it was. But nice try. It's all a matter of degree. How offensive? How many people are offended vs. how many people benefit from the practice and how those benefits and liberties (not legal, but social) may be affected by accomodating those who are offended? etc., etc. And I doubt you would apply your "GET OVER IT" rule to every possible offensive practice, so we are talking (or we SHOULD be talking) matters of degree here, not some pure principle you seem to think you are applying (but I would guess would not really stick to in all cases, real or hypothetical). By the way, would YOU tell Jewish people to "GET OVER IT" if they complained about that hypothetical German soccer team I described?
I'll be away a few hours, but I look forward your answer, and maybe even one from Neil, too.
...a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right...
---Thomas Paine---
Is this the second time you've asked that? I know I've seen it before and didn't bother to answer it because it seemed like a rhetorical question that was intended to have some significance that it actually lacks. But what the heck: Yes, there is a right not to be offended. So?
"Yes, there is a right not to be offended. So?"
Exactly where is that right derived from? Is it a natural right? Is it a right included in the Constitution's articles and amendments?
...a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right...
---Thomas Paine---
I really don't see what the purpose of this line of questioning is, but I'll answer anyway as best I can.
You're asking me if someone has a right to have a particular kind of opinion or feeling about something, and from where does that right derive. Yes, they have that right. Yes, I guess it's a natural right to have an opinion or feeling about something, and the expression of one's views is also a Constitutional right.
"I really don't see what the purpose of this line of questioning is, but I'll answer anyway as best I can. You're asking me if someone has a right to have a particular kind of opinion or feeling about something, and from where does that right derive. Yes, they have that right. Yes, I guess it's a natural right to have an opinion or feeling about something, and the expression of one's views is also a Constitutional right."
A right to be offended is very different from a right not to be offended. A right to be offended suggests the existence of human emotions, and might be a natural right. Please note that my original question was: is there a right to not be offended by they activities of others.. If there is a right to not be offended then, it would reasonably follow that anyone who is offended then has some form of legal redress (civil, criminal. etc.) against the violator of the right to not be offended.
It is very easy to see how a right to not be offended would crowd out every other right. My "line of questioning" was intended to remind readers of the aforewritten. In an era where those that talk about offensiveness usually do so in order to advocate for some form of prohibition, it is important to remind people of what would be destroyed by such prohibitions.
...a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right...
---Thomas Paine---
Oh, I misunderstood what you meant. I thought you were asking if someone has the "right" to think "I'm not offended by that". That's what I thought you meant by "the right not to be offended". So if you understand what I'm saying, you can see why I couldn't see why you were asking.
As for the question as you meant it (if I'm getting you this time), no, someone does not have a broad right not to be offended. As you say, such a right would imply that they could take legal action against any act (including statements) that offended them, which would be nutty. There are at least arguably some exceptions (which I'd agree with) such as community standards for obscenity. But as a general rule, no, there is no right to be protected from others doing things that offend you. My goodness, who would want to live in that world?
I've merely been talking about what is considerate.
"It's all a matter of degree. How offensive? How many people are offended vs. how many people benefit from the practice and how those benefits and liberties (not legal, but social) may be affected by accommodating those who are offended? etc., etc."
I wonder, what would happen if this same principle was applied to your position on tax cuts vs. revenue? Your position did appear to offend a lot of RedStaters. Many of those that were offended appeared to be highly offended by it. Moreover, your position could be construed as undermining the case for lower taxes, which hurts every tax payer both socially and financially.
...a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right...
---Thomas Paine---
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson
...a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right...
---Thomas Paine---
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson
But it will offend me a whole lot LESS after my Cowboys put a country whupping on those Redskins on Nov 18 (and also on Dec 30).
How about CowboyState. Or RomoState....heh , heh, argggghhhh...
It's war -- so when can we start shooting back at the enemy Democrats?
Jackie Smith! Jackie Smith! Jackie Smith! I hope you're old enough to find that "offensive" or at least to have traumatic flashbacks all night ;>
To me, they're more like this.
Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.
Aye, from the crowsnest I can see what thou speakith of, matey.
...a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right...
---Thomas Paine---
My goodness, what a stretch. Actually, "stretch" is way too generous. That just makes no sense. NOT to get back into that debate here, but, let's just say, this is my PERSPECTIVE and the action I took:
1) I found a strong consensus among economists (including Bush's own current and former economists) that the belief that the Bush tax cuts have had a net positive impact on revenues is a MYTH, and the same goes for if they are extended.
2) I have also found a strong consensus among economists that we are on an unsustainable fiscal course that will lead to disaster if projected entitlement spending and/or taxation is not altered very substantially and in ways that will be painful and therefore politically difficult to achieve, particularly to achieve sooner rather than later -- and economists agree that we will be much better off making such changes sooner rather than later.
3) Therefore, fiscal RESPONSIBILITY (which I consider a cornerstone of TRUE fiscal conservatism) calls for us to base our fiscal policy -- how much we need to cut, and how much, if at all, we need to raise taxes -- on the closest we can come (probabalistically) to realistic assumptions, not "feel good" "have our cake and eat it, too" assumptions based on what non-economists are saying.
4) I have sought (with a good deal of my time) to inform those who are unaware of all of the above, or who seem to want to persist with "feel good" assumptions rather than take an objective look at the best information and expert opinions available, because I care about the future of this country and I want our fiscal policy to be as wise as possible (so we're not all totally scr*wed in a couple of decades with huge tax increases and a lower standard of living and less national security), which will require an informed, realistic citizenry.
5) In the course of doing the above, several people got snarky and insulting toward me (and on fewer occasions I was probably guilty of initiating the snark), and I responded in kind. Of course, some here have a double standard and have criticized my tone in such cases but never that of others, either in dialogues with me or in their comments toward others.
And you have a problem with that? Please.
And you think that relates in some meaningful way to the topic of this thread? Please.
And you
I do not doubt that it is your perspective, but that does not negate its ability to offend. Remember, to be offended is to have an unpleasant emotional response to another person's actions, thoughts, beliefs, perspective, etc. Moreover, the consensus of a small group of people does not protect one's actions, thoughts, beliefs, perspective, etc. from offending another's emotions. Moreover, myth busting of either real or imaginary myths is most assuredly offensive to those that embrace those myths. Given the afore and the reactions of several posters towards your revenues vs. tax rate position (remember I am not challenging your position on revenue vs. tax rates in this thread), it would be difficult to deny that your position on revenues vs. tax rates did offend emotions.
Once the existence of offense has been established you have proposed the standard quoted below to determine how the offended will be accommodated.
"It's all a matter of degree. How offensive? How many people are offended vs. how many people benefit from the practice and how those benefits and liberties (not legal, but social) may be affected by accommodating those who are offended? etc., etc."
Clearly several posters here were offended by your revenues vs. tax rate perspective.. Additionally these same posters must have found your perspective highly offensive, or else they would be less consistent, and less ugly in the snark department. No? How many people found your perspective offensive, I do not know but the number is greater than two or three. Now under your standard it must then be determined "...how those benefits and liberties (not legal, but social) may be affected by accommodating those who are offended?" I am not really certain how this element of your standard is supposed to work. Perhaps then I should ask you how under your own standard should you accommodate those you have offended?
...a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right...
---Thomas Paine---
No offense (and I mean that sincerely), but I think you're grasping at insignificant, irrelevant straws.
First, as indicated by my "etc., etc.", I did intend my criteria to be exhaustive. And elsewhere I have stated that the REASONABLENESS of the offense is also a factor, however subjective (although some degree of objectivity can be introduced by discussing and arriving at agreement on principles and analogous situations, to at least avoid double standards and other inconsistencies).
Second, I would never suggest that avoiding the possibility of offending anyone is anything remotely close to the be-all-end-all rule regarding appropriate conduct, so if that's the road you're going down, it's a dead end. Whether viewed from the perspective of individual liberty or even utilitarianism or other form of consequentialism, there are certainly legitimate arguments in many, many cases that may offend -- or is even virtually certain to offend -- can be not only NOT inappropriate, but the moral (i.e., the right) thing to do. In fact, it's hard to think of any great and noble cause that could have been undertaken without offending someone.
So is this line of questioning just based on a misunderstanding of the principles I've suggested, or is there somewhere you'd like to go with this? (I don't mean that in a snarky way; just asking)
I thought that your standard was flawed and I just tried to use a recent example to illuminate it.
...a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right...
---Thomas Paine---
but ...
I'll agree that something should be done about the soccer team once you agree that pornography should be eliminated because it offends me.
Something tells me you're not gonna buy that one.
...when they see me they'll say, "There goes Loren Wallace,
the greatest thing to ever climb into a race car."
Tell you what: If some professional sports team emerges and calls themselves the Jesus Christ Gay Sadomasochistic Sex Machines and has, well, you can imagine the nature and actions of the mascot, I'd be the first one to say it is outrageously offensive and the decent thing for that team to do would be to change the name and mascot to something way less offensive. Would you be with me on that? Seriously, would you? Or would you just tell any Christians who were offended to "get over it" and "grow thicker skin". Seriously, please answer.
HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Reality: Thompson/Romney Dream: Santorum/Watts.
I see you're still around, Neil. So here's a recap: You say something ridiculously absurd, then I call you on it and ask if you're really saying what you seem to be saying, and you respond by not answering me and instead accusing me of basically being extremely anti-American and saying that you won't continue the debate. But you WILL proceed to drop little pieces of silly ridicule directed toward me. I guess you get the gutless wonder award for today.
No surprise, but you're avoiding the question. The presence of pornography in the stores, on TV, and pretty much everywhere, offends me and many, many others. So ... do you support eliminating pornography? Yes or no?
Using a patently absurd example that you and I know will never, ever happen, is irrelevant, and demonstrates that you are at the point (as usual) of doing nothing more than trolling. And you'll once again get the last word, because this is the last response you'll get from me.
...when they see me they'll say, "There goes Loren Wallace,
the greatest thing to ever climb into a race car."
It's hard NOT to respond, even if that means "getting in the last word" when people say things that cry out for correction, particularly if they falsely accuse me of things like "trolling" simply because they lack an understanding of what I'm saying and of useful methods of debate in general.
Your pornography example is not a particularly good analogy, but to answer your question, I would not favor banning private consumption of all pornography, but I would probably favor laws requiring some exercise of discretion (such as keeping the skin rags out of view) if a community desired such laws. Satisfied? What incisive and relevant point you think you've made is beyond me.
Using a patently absurd example that you and I know will never, ever happen, is irrelevant, and demonstrates that you are at the point (as usual) of doing nothing more than trolling.
You have just demonstrated a complete lack of understanding of one of the most useful methods of philisophical discussion and debate since at least Socrates. Extreme hypotheticals are quite often the most useful method of testing pricipals. And of course, once principles have been refined, debate works its way back to real world application. That's not the only way to discuss and debate such issues, but it's often the best way. If you don't get that, maybe I can't help you. It's probably something either someone gets or they don't. But you're utter misunderstanding of perhaps the most important and useful method of philisophical debate is not a good reason for accusing me of "trolling". But I don't expect you to get that.
I hereby claim my Cindy Sheehan Signature Edition of moral superiority to proclaim that the NCAA is a worthless pile of crap,(primarily because it is run by PC, self righteous college administators and, as such, is reflective of how they run their universities), for taking their inane and stupid position on school mascots. As for me, call me an indian, injun or anything you like as long as you call me for dinner.
Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.
I get to go to all the pow wows, the rain dances (haven't needed any this summer), the occasional scalping, and of course all the protests at Texas Stadium when the Redskins come to town (you know, that's really offensive that a football team would strive to strike fear in the hearts of their opponents by evoking our image).
But I don't get a VOTE. What up with that, bro?
It's war -- so when can we start shooting back at the enemy Democrats?
You have to have been certified as to blood quantum and accepted onto the Official Roll of the Nation. To do this, you have to prove an ancestor was on one of the official census rolls. My grandfather was full, my dad half and I'm a quarter.
Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.
from my grandmother, who said she was half cherokee by her father who was supposed full blood but had an Irish name. I saw one old photograph and he certainly looked indian, but he was not on the rolls. Their family never had to go on the trail of tears, they had land in north Alabama.
"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle
(dad 3/4, mom 1/2) and if I or my brothers wanted to we could probably jump through the necessary hoops, as it's pretty verifiable. Mainly I just never knew there was anything worthwhile to VOTE on. I've hated the BIA since I was old enough to understand how they were sucking the life out of Indians everywhere (the best analog I can think of for the BIA is teacher unions), so I guess I just avoided any official business of any kind. Proud to be Cherokee, but not interested in exploiting it.
Besides, being an American is the best heritage I could ever wish to be a part of. Out of many, one
It's war -- so when can we start shooting back at the enemy Democrats?
Medved today:
Few opinions I've expressed on air have produced a more indignant, outraged reaction than my repeated insistence that the word "genocide" in no way fits as a description of the treatment of Native Americans by British colonists or, later, American settlers.
I've never denied that the 400 year history of American contact with the Indians includes many examples of white cruelty and viciousness --- just as the Native Americans frequently (indeed, regularly) dealt with the European newcomers with monstrous brutality and, indeed, savagery. In fact, reading the history of the relationship between British settlers and Native Americans its obvious that the blood-thirsty excesses of one group provoked blood thirsty excesses from the other, in a cycle that listed with scant interruption for several hundred years.
But none of the warfare (including an Indian attack in 1675 that succeeded in butchering a full one-fourth of the white population of Connecticut, and claimed additional thousands of casualties throughout New England) on either side amounted to genocide. Colonial and, later, the American government, never endorsed or practiced a policy of Indian extermination; rather, the official leaders of white society tried to restrain some of their settlers and militias and paramilitary groups from unnecessary conflict and brutality.
read it all
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/MichaelMedved/2007/09/19/reject_the_l...
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson
Is it your position, Mike that the suffering of the native Americans was merely the result of tit-for-tat (each side equally aggressive and brutal) and that neither party is any more responsible than the other? Just want to know if that's what you're contending?
to communicable disease. 95% died of same. Those that survived disease lost wars that they tried to win, without regard to "proportionality or brutality" (see scalps), to a technologically superior culture.
Had Sitting Bull discovered Europe, the situation would have been reversed.
Before we arrived and after, native tribes waged war against each other.
Thanks God we got the bomb before Hitler and Stalin.
All that keeps us free is that we stay stronger than the evil men that would put us in tyranny, not on reservations or let us be citizens.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson
People have no right to be not offended, but one of the major political parties generates support by defending the offended to the point where freedom is lost by all. Brooks is right that with some work he or anyone can come up with something offensive, try burning the flag in front of a Boy Scout troop, for example. This does not mean the perp should get to walk away, only that the people don't have any rights to get relief for offense from the government. They should get over it. Of course if the public really was offended by some mascot, they could boycott events with the mascot. Or, like Stanford (once the Indians), the student body decided to change the mascot. Now they are the Cardinal, (the color, not the bird). They will always be the Indians to me, since I went to Cal way back then. I thought at the time that Stanford was giving up a lot of tradition for the sake of a liberal cause, but they seem to get along fine with their color and their field mascot, the tree. Oh well...
So, leaving aside the disease stuff, which is essentially true but irrelevant, are you basically saying that the 19th century Americans didn't scr*w the native Americans any more than the latter tried to scr*w the former?
given land to the vanquished to preserve a culture.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson
Interesting. Sure doesn't square with my understanding of the history (broken treaties, etc.), but not something I want to debate right now. Just wanted to know if that was really your assumption.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson
We have very different understandings of the history. If you have info to send (of reasonable length), I'll gladly read it. Preferably info from a non-partisan source.
Liberal Democrats: mainstream status quo academicians
Conservative Republicans: contrarian partisans
HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Reality: Thompson/Romney Dream: Santorum/Watts.
Oh hi, Neil. I see you still have plenty of time for snarky comments, but none to defend that comment you ran from amid the smokescreen you dropped in a cowardly fashion by accusing me of being extremely anti-American. Forgive the pun, but you're a real Brave.
Me heap big proud of being insulted by heap big gasbag.
HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Reality: Thompson/Romney Dream: Santorum/Watts.
I demand reparations. $1M oughta do it... I take checks or Visa.
...when they see me they'll say, "There goes Loren Wallace,
the greatest thing to ever climb into a race car."
I thought that's how you guys really talk. I learned the Real True Story of the Red Man from Disney. Don't tell me Peter Pan steered me wrong!
I guess I, too, am a victim. Let's sue Disney!
HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Reality: Thompson/Romney Dream: Santorum/Watts.
vision of Native Americans as the only group in world history never to have broken a treaty. Everyone needs to believe in something larger than themselves.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson
They never terrorized, tortured, and murdered innocent civilians either. They never broke treaties. They never made offensive war against us of any kind.
Nope. They were truly kings among men.
HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Reality: Thompson/Romney Dream: Santorum/Watts.
by the suggestion that they:
"...never made offensive war against us of any kind."
They were proud warriors.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson
I'm sure the settlers who were scalped would be offended at the Noble Savage idea, too.
HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Reality: Thompson/Romney Dream: Santorum/Watts.
HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Reality: Thompson/Romney Dream: Santorum/Watts.
It's such a fine line between stupid and clever. - David St. Hubbins