This blog was started in the intent to share some of the conversations I've had with people who do not believe as I do. It is my objective to help those who struggle with Christianity, or outright don't believe in it, to understand that it is a sensible, healthy, and likely true religion to consider. Equally, it is also my objective to understand their perspectives so to learn more about what they think and why they think that way.
I also write this blog so to invite others in my conversation to provide me comments that will improve the conversation. Many times, I have found my points weak simply because I lack the information I need to sensibly progress the conversation. Also, in many conversations I walked away with concern that what I said was incorrect. I hope that those who read this blog will provide comments that I could use in future conversations of the like.
Also, keep in mind that not all of the topics will be particularly related to religion and are a mixture of political, sociological, religious, philosophical, and scientific nature. In discussing these topics, I have been a strong advocate of the conservative moral values (to be distinguished from liberal moral values as I have come to know as different but related).
So here we go, on with the blog.
Thursday, September 19, 2013
Today, the topic of discussion that came up was whether or not the name "Redskins" should be removed as the name of the Washington DC football team since it is considered by some to be a offensive term. I post this topic as Christians are often seen as "insensitive" to offensive terms and don't want to be viewed, as a conservative, as being insensitive.
This conversation came up today as a continuing discussion that came up several months ago when my conversant (so not to give his name in respect to his privacy) admitted that he had a internal conflict about his favorite team name "Redskins". I naturally asked him what was his conflict, and he gently replied that it is both his desire to keep the identity of his "Redskins" team as well as respect the feelings that a group of Native Americans find the name "Redskins" offensive.
I had never heard such a name to be considered offensive and that from my perspective this seemed to be a case of few people overreacting over a name. Naturally, I was not prepared to argue this conclusion without understanding it first, so I inquired as to why it is considered offensive. I was told that the name "Redskins" was a derogatory name like on the same level that African Americans consider the N-word. Without any information, I admittedly said this was a fair perspective and that I could understand that if the Native Americans truly find this word offensive like the N-word that it should not be used as a title for a team.
Yesterday, I came across some articles where the issue was flared up again as the proponents of this movement to remove the name "Redskins" was attempting to involve Congress to take action against the "Redskins" franchise in order to convince them to remove the name. Curious, I found several articles on Google explaining that the vast majority of Native Americans were not offended at the word "Redskins" and that the fans are quite upset at the possibility of the name they love being removed. I found out that something of the order of 90 percent of "Redskins" fans who were Native American did not find it offensive in addition to the majority of Native American chiefs. So naturally, today, I told my conversant that there is no reason why he should be conflicted about the name "Redskins" since most Native Americans were not offended by the name.
His response is that despite what I said that he feels the same about the name "Redskins" and that it didn't matter if the majority of the people didn't find it offensive and that the few should matter to everyone when the word "Redskins" is used because of this. My response was that of opposition and argued that if the majority of Native Americans were not offended by the name, then it shouldn't be an issue.
Now granted, after some talk about my response, I admitted that if a few people are hurt by the name, and the majority just don't find it offensive, then it might be worth considering not using the word. My understanding is that those people who we refer to in the phrase - "majority that don't find it offensive" - are not opposed to those who are offended and thus does not have a dog in the fight. So of course defending the name "Redskins" to be kept has no defense to those who are not offended.
However, I was still not satisfied with this conclusion as I knew that there were a number of people that love the name, that take PRIDE in the name, so I responded with asking the question "If the majority of people take pride in the name, and a few take offence, where should the sensitivity lay?" I also articulated that the information I found on the internet seems to indicate that the "Redskins" fans take pride in the name, in addition to some of the Native American tribes themselves, and by removing the name would be hurtful to them.
He considered that and said that he would research it for himself. He seemed to be convinced that if indeed more people would be hurt because of the pride they had in the name was removed that it would be something to consider.
The response I got, through email, was that he did research and found "mixed results" in the polls and that the one what he considers a reputable source stated that 56 percent of fans were offended by the name. This email was not a conclusion and was particularly happy to see as it not only contradicts what I had said to him but also that despite the loose data on the subject that his passions against the name were retained.
The lesson I found in this discussion was my conversant (who may are may not agree with the majority) believes that if a certain number of people articulate an offence to the term, and the term is derogatory to a person or group of people, then everyone should stop using the word. My argument, of sorts, about the majority of peoples opinion to be a dominating factor of establishing a general rule for the decision to use this acclaimed offensive term was weak in that those who don't find it offensive would be indifferent towards its use (other than the fact they may need to make some effort to not use the word). However, my argument that those who take pride in the term and who are representative of the group do matter. The proportion of people who are offended to those who take pride in deciding rather or not the word should be used was not discussed. It may have been assumed to be those with greater than 50 percent is the winner, but I'm not sure. I dropped the discussion after the email.
This conversation came up today as a continuing discussion that came up several months ago when my conversant (so not to give his name in respect to his privacy) admitted that he had a internal conflict about his favorite team name "Redskins". I naturally asked him what was his conflict, and he gently replied that it is both his desire to keep the identity of his "Redskins" team as well as respect the feelings that a group of Native Americans find the name "Redskins" offensive.
I had never heard such a name to be considered offensive and that from my perspective this seemed to be a case of few people overreacting over a name. Naturally, I was not prepared to argue this conclusion without understanding it first, so I inquired as to why it is considered offensive. I was told that the name "Redskins" was a derogatory name like on the same level that African Americans consider the N-word. Without any information, I admittedly said this was a fair perspective and that I could understand that if the Native Americans truly find this word offensive like the N-word that it should not be used as a title for a team.
Yesterday, I came across some articles where the issue was flared up again as the proponents of this movement to remove the name "Redskins" was attempting to involve Congress to take action against the "Redskins" franchise in order to convince them to remove the name. Curious, I found several articles on Google explaining that the vast majority of Native Americans were not offended at the word "Redskins" and that the fans are quite upset at the possibility of the name they love being removed. I found out that something of the order of 90 percent of "Redskins" fans who were Native American did not find it offensive in addition to the majority of Native American chiefs. So naturally, today, I told my conversant that there is no reason why he should be conflicted about the name "Redskins" since most Native Americans were not offended by the name.
His response is that despite what I said that he feels the same about the name "Redskins" and that it didn't matter if the majority of the people didn't find it offensive and that the few should matter to everyone when the word "Redskins" is used because of this. My response was that of opposition and argued that if the majority of Native Americans were not offended by the name, then it shouldn't be an issue.
Now granted, after some talk about my response, I admitted that if a few people are hurt by the name, and the majority just don't find it offensive, then it might be worth considering not using the word. My understanding is that those people who we refer to in the phrase - "majority that don't find it offensive" - are not opposed to those who are offended and thus does not have a dog in the fight. So of course defending the name "Redskins" to be kept has no defense to those who are not offended.
However, I was still not satisfied with this conclusion as I knew that there were a number of people that love the name, that take PRIDE in the name, so I responded with asking the question "If the majority of people take pride in the name, and a few take offence, where should the sensitivity lay?" I also articulated that the information I found on the internet seems to indicate that the "Redskins" fans take pride in the name, in addition to some of the Native American tribes themselves, and by removing the name would be hurtful to them.
He considered that and said that he would research it for himself. He seemed to be convinced that if indeed more people would be hurt because of the pride they had in the name was removed that it would be something to consider.
The response I got, through email, was that he did research and found "mixed results" in the polls and that the one what he considers a reputable source stated that 56 percent of fans were offended by the name. This email was not a conclusion and was particularly happy to see as it not only contradicts what I had said to him but also that despite the loose data on the subject that his passions against the name were retained.
The lesson I found in this discussion was my conversant (who may are may not agree with the majority) believes that if a certain number of people articulate an offence to the term, and the term is derogatory to a person or group of people, then everyone should stop using the word. My argument, of sorts, about the majority of peoples opinion to be a dominating factor of establishing a general rule for the decision to use this acclaimed offensive term was weak in that those who don't find it offensive would be indifferent towards its use (other than the fact they may need to make some effort to not use the word). However, my argument that those who take pride in the term and who are representative of the group do matter. The proportion of people who are offended to those who take pride in deciding rather or not the word should be used was not discussed. It may have been assumed to be those with greater than 50 percent is the winner, but I'm not sure. I dropped the discussion after the email.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)