This makes things interesting...

U.S. Patent Office cancels Washington Redskins trademark - ESPN (http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/11102096/us-patent-office-cancels-washington-redskins-trademark)

I posted this in politics section since I imagine most of the discussion will be political in nature.

http://www.okctalk.com/politics/38184-feds-redskins-your-name-offensive-your-trademarks-revoked.html

Since I don't peruse that section, I did not see it. My apologies.

Here is a commercial recently aired during the NBA playoffs by American Indian groups regarding the name:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mR-tbOxlhvE

So who's next? Shall we rename the state of Indiana? Or its major city, Indianapolis? How about cancelling copyright on all the Indiana Jones flicks?

Political correctness was insane from the beginning. It's now gotten so far out of touch with reality that no word exists to describe it...

I love this Louis CK bit about the original white settlers and "Indians" (warning: mild profanity):

L9VMY8X9rU8

What does Elizabeth warren think on the subject?

So who's next? Shall we rename the state of Indiana? Or its major city, Indianapolis? How about cancelling copyright on all the Indiana Jones flicks?

Political correctness was insane from the beginning. It's now gotten so far out of touch with reality that no word exists to describe it...

How bout..."asinine?"

Political correctness was insane from the beginning. It's now gotten so far out of touch with reality that no word exists to describe it...

Says you. Many Native peoples are offended by it. What's actually "insane" is this nation's treatment of Native Americans. Seriously. I'd say this is a much milder topic that probably falls into a category somewhere south of insanity.

Says you. Many Native peoples are offended by it. What's actually "insane" is this nation's treatment of Native Americans. Seriously. I'd say this is a much milder topic that probably falls into a category somewhere south of insanity.
Please don't turn this into a discussion of how Native Americans were treated. Everyone knows the history. The question is whether the name is, what? Some NA are offended, others aren't. I have always been perplexed as to why it was ever chosen in the first place but that's just my opinion. I do urge people to do a little research into how the name was chosen - I was curious and looked it up. interesting story and one in which Native Americans played an active role.

Personally, I don't care if they change the name. I think the whole PC thing has gotten so out of control. When does the angst end? This has turned into a thought control cancer. It is sapping individualism and independent thought out of people. It's like the hive is trying to blackmail everyone to control their brains. Words matter, yes - but they don't matter all that much in this context. It is like someone, somewhere, came up with "rules" and discernment and context were thrown out the window. Everyone thinks they have the right to not be offended. On its face, that can't work.

It's what I call a P.O.C. Political Over Correctness. Life is getting more poc marked the older I get. Maybe the matrix wouldn't be a bad idea. That way we all could live in a perfect world.

I have a simple rule. I call people what they want to be called. If something is offensive to them then I won't use that terminology. It's their lives and identities... why would it bother me to call people what they want to be called? It's an easy way to show people respect.

Language is important and our society has grown as we've rid ourselves of many "politically correct" terms that used to be commonly used, but are now unacceptable. I doubt anyone here would defend the use of many of those terms.

Anyway, here's an account from Baxter Holmes - an American Indian, an OU grad, and a pretty good sports writer for the Boston Globe (I follow his NBA stuff) - as to why the term "Redskin" is offensive to him: A 'Redskin' Is the Scalped Head of a Native American, Sold, Like a Pelt, for Cash - Esquire (http://www.esquire.com/blogs/news/true-redskins-meaning)

If it's hurtful to him and others then I see no need to personally use it. It's not up to me if the name is changed, but I support and respect several Native people I know who are offended by the term. Lots of sports teams - pro and college - have changed their names without problem. It won't affect the games being played.

Says you. Many Native peoples are offended by it. What's actually "insane" is this nation's treatment of Native Americans. Seriously. I'd say this is a much milder topic that probably falls into a category somewhere south of insanity.

Actually from all I have heard and read most Native Americans are not offended by it at all.
Quick math question for ya...
What do you get when you add a heavy dose of political correctness to a mental deficiency?
Answer= Harry Reid.

Next on the menu ........
8224

Actually from all I have heard and read most Native Americans are not offended by it at all.

First, do you have anything to back this up? Honestly asking. I'd like to see it. Secondly, even if it's a small portion of American Indians (who come from many different tribes with different histories and beliefs), I'm not sure that changes what I posted.

I have a simple rule. I call people what they want to be called. If something is offensive to them then I won't use that terminology. It's their lives and identities... why would it bother me to call people what they want to be called? It's an easy way to show people respect.

Language is important and our society has grown as we've rid ourselves of many "politically correct" terms that used to be commonly used, but are now unacceptable. I doubt anyone here would defend the use of many of those terms.

Anyway, here's an account from Baxter Holmes - an American Indian, an OU grad, and a pretty good sports writer for the Boston Globe (I follow his NBA stuff) - as to why the term "Redskin" is offensive to him: A 'Redskin' Is the Scalped Head of a Native American, Sold, Like a Pelt, for Cash - Esquire (http://www.esquire.com/blogs/news/true-redskins-meaning)

If it's hurtful to him and others then I see no need to personally use it. It's not up to me if the name is changed, but I support and respect several Native people I know who are offended by the term. Lots of sports teams - pro and college - have changed their names without problem. It won't affect the games being played.

You are using a simple rule of etiquette that makes sense one on one. The problem with the pc crowd and why it is so oppressive is that the approach treats large groups as if they are a single entity, attributing stereotypical characteristics, thoughts, desires, morality, aspirations, etc. of some of its members to all its members. It is the height of rudeness to the ones with who don't fall within the stereotype and the essense of prejudice (prejudging).

This Native American may feel this way, that one may feel another. Using a term some are offended by (but not others) defeats the one on one rule and illustrates why it it useless, even harmful, on large groups. The mindset, perhaps undertaken with good intentions, simplifies social interactions to the point where diversity within a group is erased and many individuals just aren't "seen." It is a way to socially erase individuals and arbitrarily define them in the projected image of the the one defining them. You are arguing for "some" Native Americans and giving their voice value. In exactly the same time, you are erasing the voices of dissenters who are just as Native American. Pc thought, which sees groups rather than individuals doesn't just devalue dissention, it erases the individuals engaged in it. To say the voices of some Native Americans don't matter because it is not the majority begs the question of why the voices of any matter. The process effectively erases all but one selected message selected by the one homogenizing the group.

Moreover, you've said you choose your words to avoid saying something that is hurtful. Well and good on an individual but what we're really talking about in a group is simply being offended. That is fundamentally different than being hurt but the pc movement uses it interchangeably to control others' speech and behavior.

Actually from all I have heard and read most Native Americans are not offended by it at all.

I'm the exact opposite. My entire family and a large handful of my friends from highschool (Tahlequah High School) are Cherokee and are offended by the term.

You are using a simple rule of etiquette that makes sense one on one. The problem with the pc crowd and why it is so oppressive is that the approach treats large groups as if they are a single entity, attributing stereotypical characteristics, thoughts, desires, morality, aspirations, etc. of some of its members to all its members. It is the height of rudeness to the ones with who don't fall within the stereotype and the essense of prejudice (prejudging).

This Native American may feel this way, that one may feel another. Using a term some are offended by (but not others) defeats the one on one rule and illustrates why it it useless, even harmful, on large groups. The mindset, perhaps undertaken with good intentions, simplifies social interactions to the point where diversity within a group is erased and many individuals just aren't "seen." It is a way to socially erase individuals and arbitrarily define them in the projected image of the the one defining them. You are arguing for "some" Native Americans and giving their voice value. In exactly the same time, you are erasing the voices of dissenters who are just as Native American. Pc thought, which sees groups rather than individuals doesn't just devalue dissention, it erases the individuals engaged in it. To say the voices of some Native Americans don't matter because it is not the majority begs the question of why the voices of any matter. The process effectively erases all but one selected message selected by the one homogenizing the group.

Moreover, you've said you choose your words to avoid saying something that is hurtful. Well and good on an individual but what we're really talking about in a group is simply being offended. That is fundamentally different than being hurt but the pc movement uses it interchangeably to control others' speech and behavior.

So with this line of thought, using the N word should be ok because there are probably some black people who arent offended by it..? Because some Indians are apathetic about it, its fine and dandy to use a term that thousands find offensive? You are reaching in your arguments again.

Here is a pretty powerful video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mR-tbOxlhvE

If you think the use of the N word as a slur isn't universally condemned, you aren't paying attention. The N word isn't something anyone needs to "explain" to people - they already know it. It is when people start picking and choosing among divergent opinions and the like within groups that you erase individuals. You are merely arguing the exception that proves the rule.

I'm the exact opposite. My entire family and a large handful of my friends from highschool (Tahlequah High School) are Cherokee and are offended by the term.I once wrote a magazine column that was quite laudatory of the Cherokee people, pointing out that they had established the first newspaper printed in these parts and in the 1850s were far more civilized than their non-Cherokee neighbors in Arkansas.

In return I got a quite angry letter from a member of the Eastern Band, who was offended by my mention of the local Cherokees as if they were the only ones entitled to the name. Never mind that those in the Carolinas were not at all pertinent to my original account.

That reminded me of the group's own bitter internal emnity, which persists to this day. Should I allow that one angry letter to prevent me from mentioning the peoples' own name for themselves at all?

Back to the original topic subject, I was unaware that "redskin" originally referred to the bounty-for-scalps practice employed by both sides but mostly by the British during the early border wars. If that obscure reference is what makes it offensive, ought we not come up with another term for the practice of scalping tickets to athletic events as well?

What offends me is simply the practice of emasculating the American language (oops, didn't mean to offend the Poms or Kiwis) to suit the whims of any group. I'm also offended by all the changes made in the labels applied to people whose ancestry traces back to Africa more recently than does that of the rest of us -- who all originated there if one can trust the anthropologists!

If you think the use of the N word as a slur isn't universally condemned, you aren't paying attention. The N word isn't something anyone needs to "explain" to people - they already know it. It is when people start picking and choosing among divergent opinions and the like within groups that you erase individuals. You are merely arguing the exception that proves the rule.In this context, I highly recommend reading Mark Twain's "The Tragedy of Pudd'nHead Wilson" which is available on line in the Gutenberg project. His entire theme is the total absurdity of race relations along the Mississippi River border of Missouri in the late 19th Century, but the work is riddled through with the N word and would miss his point completely if it were bowdlerized to conform to the PC standards...

Can we throw this in the mix...how bout "honkie" and "cracker?" It was explained to me many years ago (after the race riots at Travis AFB), that honkie really wasn't offensive because it was a term used by renters "of color" in reference to the landlord that honked his car horn, letting folks know they were there to collect the rent. As for "cracker." I dunno...I didn't Google it. I have been called so many names in my lifetime, I have to check my I.D. to remind me what my REAL name is. :)

I have a simple rule. I call people what they want to be called.

Right. And it's not just race.

The way women are referred to has changed pretty dramatically in the last few decades. You would get your tail sued for calling a woman a "broad" or "filly" or even "sweetheart" or "honey" in today's workplace. And that makes sense because these terms are demeaning. Innocent or not, they are a condescending pat on the head (or butt) that serves to exert superiority.

White men can't possibly empathize. There is simply no way anyone could address my gender, race or general background that could ever carry any weight. "Honky"? Okay. Doesn't bother me in the least. "Cracker"? Doesn't really apply, but whatever.

In fact, my dad was 100% Polish and my surname is clearly Polish. I grew up at the peak of the Polock joke, and of course heard them from tons of kids. But I was smarter than just about all of them so it had zero impact. In fact, the only other two kids with Polish names were among the top students in school.


It's not just the words, they also have to be delivered from a position of power, past or present.

Right. And it's not just race.

The way women are referred to has changed pretty dramatically in the last few decades. You would get your tail sued for calling a woman a "broad" or "filly" or even "sweetheart" or "honey" in today's workplace. And that makes sense because these terms are demeaning. Innocent or not, they are a condescending pat on the head (or butt) that serves to exert superiority.

White men can't possibly empathize. There is simply no way anyone could address my gender, race or general background that could ever carry any weight. "Honky"? Okay. Doesn't bother me in the least. "Cracker"? Doesn't really apply, but whatever.

In fact, my dad was 100% Polish and my surname is clearly Polish. I grew up at the peak of the Polock joke, and of course heard them from tons of kids. But I was smarter than just about all of them so it had zero impact. In fact, the only other two kids with Polish names were among the top students in school.


It's not just the words, they also have to be delivered from a position of power, past or present.

Summed up perfectly.

Pete...6 of my very best friends in life were German/Poilish (they were related to Rudolf Hess), and they knew and told all the jokes back then (1980's). Hmmmmm, I gotta look up Scottish jokes.

It's usually the people who perceive themselves in positions of power and superiority who have no issue with demeaning a whole race or class of people because they themselves are totally ignorant of the origins and bigotry of the terms and don't really care or want to know about the effects of using the terms. They view objections to the ignorance as political correctness. Lol. They view the spread of knowledge and resultant changes as political correctness. Just drop the ignorance and call it what it is....correctness.

From my FAV file...

8231

Also, it has has to be said it was the white male population that decided on these various terms for others in the first place, back when there were literally no other groups of people with any influence whatsoever. You have to remember this was universally true until almost the 80's, for crying out loud.

White male society just decided we'll call them Indians (as Louis CK noted) or Negros or Chicks or Polocks or whatever. These names were *assigned* by white guys.

But thankfully we now live in a different world. What is more contrary to a free, democratic society than to deny a group to name themselves?? Or rename themselves because the one assigned to them was almost completely based on offensive stereotypes?


Some people don't like change or just plain fear it. Fine, but that does not trump an entire group's right to dignity.

So who's next? Shall we rename the state of Indiana? Or its major city, Indianapolis? How about cancelling copyright on all the Indiana Jones flicks?

Political correctness was insane from the beginning. It's now gotten so far out of touch with reality that no word exists to describe it...

If there was a word to describe it, it would probably be deemed politically incorrect.

I love this Louis CK bit about the original white settlers and "Indians" (warning: mild profanity):

L9VMY8X9rU8

I once wrote a brief essay on that exact subject.
Many of the pre-euromongrelinvasion inhabitors of this continent simply referred to themselves as "The People."
I think that objections should be raised to the term Native American. The "American" part is based on some European dude, probably from Italy. named Amerigo Vespucci. Like Cristobal Colon (Christopher "The Genocidalist" Columbus).

It all just makes me so sad . . . Like this guy (a pre-Ward Churchill "Indian" imitator--ironically, also of Italian descent).
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/ce/People_Start_Pollution_-_1971_Ad.jpg

Pete...6 of my very best friends in life were German/Poilish (they were related to Rudolf Hess), and they knew and told all the jokes back then (1980's). Hmmmmm, I gotta look up Scottish jokes.

Yes, and I know African Americans who have used the N word, but that doesn't mean using the term is OK. Try naming the Dallas Cowboys the Dallas N's and see where that gets you. Try justifying by saying that you know someone who uses it and that makes it somehow OK.

It's usually the people who perceive themselves in positions of power and superiority who have no issue with demeaning a whole race or class of people because they themselves are totally ignorant of the origins and bigotry of the terms and don't really care or want to know about the effects of using the terms. They view objections to the ignorance as political correctness. Lol. They view the spread of knowledge and resultant changes as political correctness. Just drop the ignorance and call it what it is....correctness.
Attributing stereotypical characterists to individuals based on some "group" is never anything but ugly. If it isn't used to demonize, it is nearly always used as some means to an end that benefits the one making the attributions. The easy way to avoid being technically hateful and dishonest is to just admit you're just making stuff up about the individuals in the group, and pick an audience with the same prejudices.

White men can't possibly empathize. There is simply no way anyone could address my gender, race or general background that could ever carry any weight. "Honky"? Okay. Doesn't bother me in the least. "Cracker"? Doesn't really apply, but whatever.

There is answer your answer right there. Have you ever given deep consideration as to why those terms don't bother you even though the people saying them intend for them to be derogatory and hurtful? Figure that out and share the answer with non white males.

You know the only name that kinda bugs me: "African American". Why not just African?

People from Asia are Asian, those from Europe are European... And yes, sometimes people say Asian-American but that is infrequent.

In this country, AA was decided on and is used extensively, but how do we know the particular person is American at all? Just because they happen to be *in* America? That's a bit presumptuous. Couldn't they actually be citizens of Jamaica, Nigeria or even Canada, and not American at all?

Think about an NBA game. There are lots of people from African descent in the league who are not Americans; so if Kevin Durant is African American, what does that make Serge Ibaka (from Congo)??

Yes, and I know African Americans who have used the N word, but that doesn't mean using the term is OK. Try naming the Dallas Cowboys the Dallas N's and see where that gets you. Try justifying by saying that you know someone who uses it and that makes it somehow OK.

I wasn't implying that it's okay. I was simply sharing a "memory" of 6 dear friends in my life. Heck, most of the time we were falling down drunk (back then), sitting at Waffle House or Shoney's, and the jokes were flying...from the fellas with Polish ancestry. You know, like the one that goes, "How do you keep an OKCTalk Member in suspense?"

There is answer your answer right there. Have you ever given deep consideration as to why those terms don't bother you even though the people saying them intend for them to be derogatory and hurtful? Figure that out and share the answer with non white males.

So, what are you suggesting? If they were smarter they would just understand and move on?

I'm going to make one post and get back out of here because most of this thread consists of going in circles.

This isn't political correctness. This is about not putting down a group of people. Not all people are going to be offended by every nickname or stereotype, that doesn't give us the right to use it with impunity.

Take the politics out of this, this is about people. You wouldn't allow a team to use slurs for African Americans, or Asians, or Latinos. Why is this ok? Would you really be ok with the El Paso Beaners? The San Francisco Chinks? The Alabama Sambos? Give me a break. Stop making this out to be an issue of free speech or what's wrong with this country. We have such a history of racism and we can't even confront it as a society. That's not political, that historical fact.

Nothing irritates me more than politicians standing up and arrogantly professing to know what women, families, minorities, etc. "want." What they are really saying is that the part of their base that falls into those groups allegedly wants certain things they can provide. Anyone who doesn't share the same goals is erased. When I hear people, male or female, confidently telling the world what women "want," I know right there that they are either clueless or selling something. I would love to hear, "Not all women agree that X is the right policy because they aren't all the same. I recognize and respect that women aren't all the same but believe the better policy is X which is why I support it." It may not sound like a big deal but it would go a long way towards being inclusive.

I'm going to make one post and get back out of here because most of this thread consists of going in circles.

This isn't political correctness. This is about not putting down a group of people. Not all people are going to be offended by every nickname or stereotype, that doesn't give us the right to use it with impunity.

Take the politics out of this, this is about people. You wouldn't allow a team to use slurs for African Americans, or Asians, or Latinos. Why is this ok? Would you really be ok with the El Paso Beaners? The San Francisco Chinks? The Alabama Sambos? Give me a break. Stop making this out to be an issue of free speech or what's wrong with this country. We have such a history of racism and we can't even confront it as a society. That's not political, that historical fact.
Just to remind you that this is a thread less about the public debate over the name, and more about the steps taken by the feds - was it appropriate, premature, heavy handed, lawful?

There is answer your answer right there. Have you ever given deep consideration as to why those terms don't bother you even though the people saying them intend for them to be derogatory and hurtful? Figure that out and share the answer with non white males.

I have figured it out and stated it: The group that is trying to assert power by virtue of their race or gender doesn't actually have any over white males and never has.

For you take something as hurtful there has to be personal resonance, and for that hurt to matter on a broader scale, one group has to have power over the other; or is trying to evoke/hold power from the recent past.

I have figured it out and stated it: The group that is trying to assert power by virtue of their race or gender doesn't actually have any over white males and never has.

For you take something as hurtful there has to be personal resonance, and for that hurt to matter on a broader scale, one group has to have power over the other; or is trying to evoke/hold power from the recent past.

So you would say that you are comfortable in your own skin?

So, if an African American is insulted by being called a N word, then it is because they are uncomfortable in their own skin? Is that what is being implied? It is a problem of the receiver, not the giver?

So, what are you suggesting? If they were smarter they would just understand and move on?

Not so much smarter as Valuing certain self images.

Being viewed as a victim bothers some much more than others. In some groups, for example white males, a greater value is often attached to the notion of "getting back up." Dwelling on victimhood is not encouraged and, in fact, is viewed as a sign of weakness. Certain Native American groups share that value as do the Japanese. (Yes, I am talking about group stereotypes). Being viewed as a victim, for some, evokes feelings of shame and humiliation. This is not a controversial statement. It is the reason so many white men won't go to the doctor, won't ask for help, won't admit to weakness.

In contrast, other groups are more comfortable with the status as victim. The conflict between embracing victimhood vs "I am woman, hear me roar" divides the feminist movement. Conservative African Americans reject the idea of victimhood, instead, identifying with an image of being victors over horrible circumstances. It pits them against their more liberal brethren who embrace the status of victim that has become a defining characteristic, often used as a sword.

So, if an African American is insulted by being called a N word, then it is because they are uncomfortable in their own skin? Is that what is being implied? It is a problem of the receiver, not the giver?

I can't speak for blacks but, to me, it's just incredibly rude and amounts to fighting words. It is a bit like calling a woman the C word. That is a slur our society has pretty much infused the worst sort of meaning to. It is shorthand for, "You are less than human and I have no respect for you." I wish blacks wouldn't casually use it because it is confusing and sends a mixed message.

By coincidence (or not,) I watched Reel Injun on netflix last night. I recommend it.

It is a problem of the receiver, not the giver?Absolutely!

I have no power whatsoever over others, nor can I control their actions. My only control over anything at all is how I react to it. Only my own actions are under my control.

This is not intended to be "blaming the victim" since not too many people are consciously aware of such a limitation of control. I do agree that it's up to me to refrain from antagonizing or hurting others, and to avoid stereotyping groups with offensive labels -- but how else are you going to refer to a generic group, other than by assigning some sort of label?

To quote the King of Siam's frequent observation to Anna, 'tis a puzzlement.

And the popularity of that musical performance is, in itself, a testament to just how deeply racism is built into not only our, but all, Western cultures...

Rover, are you offended by the word "honkey"? If not, why not? Why can I even use the word "honkey" and not have to say "the H-word"?

I can't speak for blacks but, to me, it's just incredibly rude and amounts to fighting words. It is a bit like calling a woman the C word. That is a slur our society has pretty much infused the worst sort of meaning to. It is shorthand for, "You are less than human and I have no respect for you." I wish blacks wouldn't casually use it because it is confusing and sends a mixed message.

It's not just the word it's the intent.

"Bad" words or put-downs get co-opted for other uses all the time. When a black guy calls another black guy the N-word, it's almost always a term of endearment. Women frequently call each other "bitch" in a fun and playful way. "Lucky bastard" is another example of putting positive spin on what can also be a horrible word if used with the intent to hurt.


The N-word and C-word and bitch and plenty of others were invented by white males to put down a whole class of people in the worst possible way. I don't view it as any sort of sacrifice -- nor is it in any way confusing or unfair -- that as I white male I cannot use those words, but perhaps others can.

Why should I care if they use it or not? I personally would never want to say those things and fully understand the consequences if I was to do so.

Just to remind you that this is a thread less about the public debate over the name, and more about the steps taken by the feds - was it appropriate, premature, heavy handed, lawful?

Would it be inappropriate and heavy handed if I was denied a trademark with the N-word in it? Of course not. Why is canceling a trademark license with an offensive name any different?

You really dont have a good argument other than you dont like Obama and you think this is another case of the govt overstepping its authority, which I totally disagree with. And BTW everyone, Im not just throwing Obama's name out there just because, Penny was the first to mention him, as if he has everything to do with this. Fifty Senators have signed a letter asking that it be changed.

Breaking News: ACLU files suit in Nashville, TN Federal Court, requesting the word "Honky" be removed from all Honky Tonk Bars in Tennessee.

(Urban Dictionary: Honky Tonk...A loud, rowdy bar that plays 'honky tonk' country music. Typically full of drunken hillbillies having a good ole' time. To go out 'honky tonkin' is to go out on the town to honky tonk bars and get drunk.)

Need a pic?

8235

It's not just the word it's the intent.


I would say that it is 100% the intent and 0% the word.

I would say that it is 100% the intent and 0% the word.

And intent is often directly tied to the group of people that is using it, as I have illustrated.

And intent is often directly tied to the group of people that is using it, as I have illustrated.

Yes and as a 3rd component - you need to care what the person using the word thinks of you.

It's not just the word it's the intent.

"Bad" words or put-downs get co-opted for other uses all the time. When a black guy calls another black guy the N-word, it's almost always a term of endearment. Women frequently call each other "bitch" in a fun and playful way. "Lucky bastard" is another example of putting positive spin on what can also be a horrible word if used with the intent to hurt.


The N-word and C-word and bitch and plenty of others were invented by white males to put down a whole class of people in the worst possible way. I don't view it as any sort of sacrifice -- nor is it in any way confusing or unfair -- that as I white male I cannot use those words, but perhaps others can.

Why should I care if they use it or not? I personally would never want to say those things and fully understand the consequences if I was to do so.
Pete, to attribute female slurs to white males strikes me as way too far a reach. Males worldwide have used those sorts of terms and to assume they came from white males is puzzling unless they really are actually satan in disguise. This has been going on since the beginning of man and likely long before the advent of the white race. Look to the bible, look to the middle ages, look to how women are treated in war. They have long been viewed as chattel, treated as spoils and didn't even get the right to vote in this country on the federal level until decades after black males were given that right. The disrespectful treatment of women in the middle east and parts of Asia is entrenched based on centuries of this attitude. And these days, the grossly common usage of these slurs in rap, in large part by black artists evidences that you have rushed past blaming white males to the point where you are giving other races a pass. As a female, I resent that. You males of all races have been equal opportunity jerks and to single out a particular race is just odd. These words didn't just pop up on some midwestern farm. These slurs have been used in all languages by men of all races.

Yes and as a 3rd component - you need to care what the person using the word thinks of you.

Strongly disagree.

That is just another way of shifting blame to the targeted person and group (just don't let it bother you!), and we've already covered that.

Pete, to attribute female slurs to white males strikes me as way too far a reach. Males worldwide have used those sorts of terms and to assume they came from white males is puzzling unless they really are actually satan in disguise. This has been going on since the beginning of man and likely long before the advent of the white race. Look to the bible, look to the middle ages, look to how women are treated in war. They have long been viewed as chattel, treated as spoils and didn't even get the right to vote in this country on the federal level until decades after black males were given that right. The disrespectful treatment of women in the middle east and parts of Asia is entrenched based on centuries of this attitude. And these days, the grossly common usage of these slurs in rap, in large part by black artists evidences that you have rushed past blaming white males to the point where you are giving other races a pass. As a female, I resent that. You males of all races have been equal opportunity jerks and to single out a particular race is just odd. These words didn't just pop up on some midwestern farm. These slurs have been used in all languages by men of all races.

You were the one to make the comparison to the N and C words and I merely quoted you and directly addressed your points.

Also, we are talking about the American culture, not elsewhere. There are still open and unregulated atrocities committed against women and people of other races and religions in various parts of the world, but that's way off subject.

Strongly disagree.

That is just another way of shifting blame to the targeted person and group (just don't let it bother you!), and we've already covered that.

What do you mean you disagree? If there was ever a truism it is that you have to care what people think of you to care about what people think of you.

Rover, are you offended by the word "honkey"? If not, why not? Why can I even use the word "honkey" and not have to say "the H-word"?

Never been called a honkey, but have been called a kraut. The person using it was trying to be "cute" while trying to gain an advantage, but would up sounding stupid as they had no idea it was a derogatory term or that others on the team were also of German descent. But, it was still purposely used as a divisive term.

I find this whole argument that everything one does is okay, that the offended should just ignore it, is just hubris. Trying to make the victim the guilty one is part of the bullying that has become the trademark of racists.

Rover, so it is safe to say you cared what the person thought of you? BTW - you have been called a honkey. I saw a Blank Panther video where they called every white American a honkey.

What do you mean you disagree? If there was ever a truism it is that you have to care what people think of you to care about what people think of you.

Not caring what someone thinks doesn't stop them from exerting power over you.

You might not care what I think of you but I could still ban you from this site (just a hypothetical! :) ) and that would affect you very directly. And I could do it for no other reason than harboring a strong dislike for Floridians or another bias. And if I did it, I could find plenty of other excuses to explain my behavior without revealing those biases.

Not all power is of the variety that you bestow to others through your own free will. Especially in the situations we're talking about, it was unfairly usurped.

Rover, so it is safe to say you cared what the person thought of you? BTW - you have been called a honkey. I saw a Blank Panther video where they called every white American a honkey.Love that typo!!!

As it happens, I've walked at least a few feet in the shoes of a minority, and can attest that it does feel very threatening to be surrounded by others who appear to have power over you. That feeling of being threatened is what finally drove me to abandon my plan to raise my sons in a racially integrated neighborhood, and join the white flight to another part of town. And the feeling was justified by actual events, not just racist fear -- being attacked by a six-year-old wielding a pitchfork, having my mailbox rifled by a teenager and my first thousand-dollar check stolen (postal inspectors found it hidden beneath the teen's house across the street), taking my eldest son to the emergency room with a broken arm thanks to that same teen; these are only a few of the incidents that occurred, and the OCPD was no help at all. Had I not gotten postal inspectors involved, the teen would not have even been taken downtown.

I still wish for a non-racist society, but don't think it's going to be possible so long as black racists get a free pass while white racists are rightfully condemned. Bill Cosby's skit about the bus driver and the green people still rings true...