And you thought Redskins is offensive....

[RiverDog]

"A Mascot Working Group study report stated opponents considered the Missionary name to be “divisive and doesn’t represent Whitman’s commitment to inclusion.”

http://www.union-bulletin.com/news/educ ... 68cee.html

Another tidbit that's not included in the article is that the school newspaper, The Pioneer, is changing it's name because it's felt to be offensive as well.

Where will it stop?

[Hawktawk]

It wont River. The activists will never stop. I know I come across as a complete redneck on the forum opposing this social engineering of sports mascots BS but this is why.

We will have an NFL of the "ITS" named one through thirty two someday and these fanatics still will not be satisfied. And it wont have made one GD persons life any better either.

[burrrton]

Missionary? Pioneer?? Holy sht- how about a trigger warning next time, you microaggressing nutjob?!?

I know I come across as a complete redneck on the forum opposing this social engineering of sports mascots BS but this is why.

No, it's perfectly rational to find this nonsense the stuff of over-coddled, over-grown children.

[edit- removed a piece]

[burrrton]

With this in mind, it's kinda entertaining to go back to that 'Redskins' thread and read some of the arguments.

[NorthHawk]

So where does missionary position itself within the list of racial slurs a la redskin?

Obviously there is no comparison. It's like calling someone a Lawyer or Chef and trying to make it sound offensive although 'Used Car Salesman' might have an argument.
Missionary has no racial bias as it's a job or convocation, redskin clearly does have a racial bias as an indigenous person has no choice in the matter.
Besides, nobody has tried to exterminate missionaries like they have the native peoples of NA.

[HumanCockroach]

It. Isn't. Worth. It.

[monkey]

Missionary? Pioneer?? Holy sht- how about a trigger warning next time, you microaggressing nutjob?!?

ROFL!

Truth is, this absolute craziness that is being taught throughout academia, is not going away anytime soon, because it's now thoroughly embedded not only within the culture of most US colleges, but within most corporate culture, as well.
The US is following the same trajectory that Rome followed during its collapse. The systematic collapse of it's institutions, the rapid decay of its morality, the rapid loss of personal rights as the political elites continue to consolidate and solidify their power, etc... Worst of all, a CRUSHING national debt that is so far beyond the ability of us to ever possibly hope to pay it off, that we simply ignore it and pretend it doesn't exist, KNOWING full well that it spells the inevitable end of this once great nation. We've sown the seeds of our own destruction, and yet, our institutions of "higher learning", rather than teaching responsibility and a return to the values that made our nation great in the first place, we are doubling down on their stupidity, and fighting over the scraps of the bloated dying corpse that was once a great nation.

I give us ten years tops.

[burrrton]

Obviously there is no comparison.

Obvious to you- who the hell are you to tell me what does or doesn't offend me if I'm a God-and-Christian-hating bigot?

In fact, San Diego's MLB team is next on my sht list.

So where does missionary position itself within the list of racial slurs a la redskin?

"Missionary position"?? Now I'm double triggered.

[burrrton]

I give us ten years tops.

I'm more optimistic about the resilience of this country, but I find it hard to argue with the comparisons to other great civilizations and their decay with all this dopey sht going on these days.

[RiverDog]

I was born and raised in Walla Walla, so I know a thing or two about Marcus Whitman and the Whitman Mission, the source of Whitman College's Missionary mascot. The Whitmans befriended Native Americans, gave them the shirts off their backs, but nevertheless, they were ambushed...sucker punched by Indians they thought were their friends, shot in the back by the very same people they were trying to help, an act that set off a war between the natives and white immigrants. Yes, it wasn't just the whites that behaved badly in the old west.

So I find it very ironic how a band of do-gooders intent on making friends with everyone that were murdered by those they had considered their friends and that they were trying to help are now deemed as offensive or not a good representative of an institution that strives to be inclusive.

Oh, how ignorant us Americans are of our own history!

[curmudgeon]

I for one, am offended by those who are offended. WTF has happened to the USA????.......

[RiverDog]

I for one, am offended by those who are offended. WTF has happened to the USA????.......

We've been pussified.

[curmudgeon]

For sure. PCfied.....

[obiken]

We've been pussified.

Redskin is racist, period. They are Native Americans not RED Skins.

That is not a pussyfacation its decent and human.

[HumanCockroach]

Simply. Not. Worth. It. Obi.

[obiken]

OK. Got. IT.

[burrrton]

Redskin is racist, period.

Missionary is offensive, period.

[c_hawkbob]

I for one, am offended by those who are offended. WTF has happened to the USA????.......

First, while I don't find 'missionaries' offensive, I do find it to be a lame team name.

But as to the rest of the discussion, I'm frankly more offended by the people that are not offended (or more rightly expressed: by the people that feel the need to express how offended they aren't and what a horrible thing it is that someone else might actually be). Like their personal comfort zone is more sacred than everyone else's sensitivity level.

IMO the pendulum has swung too far the other way, the amount of push back just isn't warranted.

[burrrton]

Like their personal comfort zone is more sacred than everyone else's sensitivity level.

I hope you realize the dripping irony of this statement.

IMO the pendulum has swung too far the other way, the amount of push back just isn't warranted.

It's the social analog of Newton's Third Law.

If people hadn't started almost literally inventing things to be offended about, I don't think you'd see this level of dismissal and ridicule.

[c_hawkbob]

Who's to say who's inventing what though? Because a thing doesn't insult you doesn't mean that it doesn't insult someone with a different background.

[burrrton]

Because a thing doesn't insult you doesn't mean that it doesn't insult someone with a different background.

I couldn't agree more.

However, who's acting like their comfort zone is more sacred than everyone else's?

Who's to say who's inventing what though?

When people object to things like dreadlocks on 'white' people and "Missionaries" as mascots (to pick two almost at random from just the last week- the full list, printed out in 10pt font, would be so large it would have its own gravity)? I am.

[c_hawkbob]

I wasn't talking about my own personal comfort zone, I was talking about how people seem to think that nowaday's, with the advent of the internet as the primary difference maker, they are free to say whatever they like regardless of how it makes those around them feel. There used to be a difference between the way you'd talk at a bar or at a construction site or in the boiler room on a ship than you'd talk in "polite society".

There is no such thing as "polite society" anymore.

Personally I have a very high threshold, but i can empathize with those that (now that the same internet that emboldens everyone to say what they feel has given them the voice they never had before) raise their hand and say something offends them. They way I see it it's easier for me to avoid saying whatever it was that offended them than it is to expect them to grow a thicker skin and get the f*ck over it.

And while I agree that the "PC crowd" are overdoing it, and in many case yes, inventing things they think someone else "could" get offended about, I think the pushback has gotten to an equally ridiculous point. Like there are some sort of "real guy" points to be earned by trying to shout them down.

[burrrton]

I was talking about how people seem to think that nowaday's, with the advent of the internet as the primary difference maker, they are free to say whatever they like regardless of how it makes those around them feel.

Well, they are, though- that's what the First Amendment is all about.

Of course that's a legal distinction, but the idea's the same- people think if it offends *them*, it should be forbidden language, and that's prioritizing *their* opinion over everyone else's.

There is no such thing as "polite society" anymore.

We both agree there. It's a sad state we're in right now.

They way I see it it's easier for me to avoid saying whatever it was that offended them than it is to expect them to grow a thicker skin and get the f*ck over it.

Personally, that's where I come down, too. I'll call you whatever you want and if you tell me something offends you, I won't say it around you again. Difference is, I don't feel justified in forcing everyone else to conform and punishing those who don't. It's a free country- assh*les can be assh*les.

And while I agree that the "PC crowd" are overdoing it, and in many case yes, inventing things they think someone else "could" get offended about, I think the pushback has gotten to an equally ridiculous point. Like there are some sort of "real guy" points to be earned by trying to shout them down.

Again we agree, but (also again) I think it's the equal and opposite reaction to the completely out-of-hand Social Justice Warriors' looking for something, *anything*, with which to bludgeon everyone they don't like or otherwise disagree with.

[obiken]

IMHO I would argue that for the jerk, racist, and sexist, political correctness, never did exist and never will. It just forced good people to correct them.

[RiverDog]

First, while I don't find 'missionaries' offensive, I do find it to be a lame team name.

But as to the rest of the discussion, I'm frankly more offended by the people that are not offended (or more rightly expressed: by the people that feel the need to express how offended they aren't and what a horrible thing it is that someone else might actually be). Like their personal comfort zone is more sacred than everyone else's sensitivity level.

IMO the pendulum has swung too far the other way, the amount of push back just isn't warranted.

The lame mascot is very appropriate for Whitman. They've always produced lame teams. There was actually a period of time when they unofficially changed their name to "Shockers", but apparently the IBEW must have threatened a lawsuit as it soon returned to Missionaries.

What pushback are you talking about? This hasn't even been reported in the mainstream media and has only made the local and regional news. IMO a lot of pushback is required. It's necessary to show as many people as possible just how absurd this nickname/mascot issue has become. We are taking this mascot/nickname thing way, way too seriously. And I want to remind you that the change includes more than just the mascot. They're changing the name of the school newspaper as supposedly the term "Pioneer" is offensive as well. These people need to feel some pushback.

As far as my own personal comfort level goes, I really don't care what a school calls themselves. At least this name change is somewhat democratic as they based their decision on some sort of a survey...although a friend of mine that's a Whitman alum wasn't invited to participate in the survey. The greater concern for me is what our society has become. I can fully understand being offended by the Stars and Bars or a Nazi swastika, but Missionaries and Pioneers? Am I to strike those two words from my personal vocabulary and refer to them as the 'M' word and the 'P' word so as not to offend some stranger?

[HumanCockroach]

In the early 60's my HS changed their name from the Hornets, I don't recall my father ( who was at the student at the time) ever claiming anything about the PC world causing problems with the world, or clamoring for the better days of the past. Hornets isn't offensive to a race, group of people or anyone else walking the earth. It was changed specifically, because of the way it was being "shortened" ( Horny) why people have issues with changing a name that IS offensive to a specific group of people 5 decades later I haven't a clue.

You can dredge up the whole " it didn't start as offensive" argument if you like ( which there is multiple questions about) however, the "N" word ALSO didn't "start as a derogatory term ( it was simply like Redskin used to describe a races skin color, based on a play on the word for the color black in Latin). What I wonder would be the blowback if the skins changed their name to "honor" another persecuted race by changing their name to the Washington N's? I wonder if many here claiming the irrelevance of using a racial slur as something other than it was ( which is no matter how you guys want to slice it simply a long standing nickname based on the description of a races coloring of skin) would be?

Pretty sure many would completely change their tune, fast enough to break necks. Why? It's the same damn thing. The only difference is the particular race being offended ( and even IF they aren't, it simply doesn't change the point of a slur not being a nickname or mascot a team should use).

[burrrton]

I can fully understand being offended by the Stars and Bars or a Nazi swastika, but Missionaries and Pioneers?

How about (in no particular order, literally off the top my head):

The American flag?
Gender specific pronouns?
God?
The color pink?
Mexican food?
Sorority parties?
Males working more hours?
Expecting men to shower in men's bathrooms?

Etc, etc, so on and so forth, virtually to infinity.

[burrrton]

What I wonder would be the blowback if the skins changed their name to "honor" another persecuted race by changing their name to the Washington N's? I wonder if many here claiming the irrelevance of using a racial slur as something other than it was ( which is no matter how you guys want to slice it simply a long standing nickname based on the description of a races coloring of skin) would be?

Begging the Question: Premises in which the truth of the conclusion is claimed or the truth of the conclusion is assumed (either directly or indirectly).

You're assuming that which is to be proved. If you can reply and demonstrate you understand why that is, without delving into another of your weird rants without addressing this point, I'll start displaying your posts again and take this up with you.

[RiverDog]

In the early 60's my HS changed their name from the Hornets, I don't recall my father ( who was at the student at the time) ever claiming anything about the PC world causing problems with the world, or clamoring for the better days of the past. Hornets isn't offensive to a race, group of people or anyone else walking the earth. It was changed specifically, because of the way it was being "shortened" ( Horny) why people have issues with changing a name that IS offensive to a specific group of people 5 decades later I haven't a clue.

You can dredge up the whole " it didn't start as offensive" argument if you like ( which there is multiple questions about) however, the "N" word ALSO didn't "start as a derogatory term ( it was simply like Redskin used to describe a races skin color, based on a play on the word for the color black in Latin). What I wonder would be the blowback if the skins changed their name to "honor" another persecuted race by changing their name to the Washington N's? I wonder if many here claiming the irrelevance of using a racial slur as something other than it was ( which is no matter how you guys want to slice it simply a long standing nickname based on the description of a races coloring of skin) would be?

Pretty sure many would completely change their tune, fast enough to break necks. Why? It's the same damn thing. The only difference is the particular race being offended ( and even IF they aren't, it simply doesn't change the point of a slur not being a nickname or mascot a team should use).

A few years ago, there was a dispute about Richland High's mascot, the "Bombers" and their symbol...a mushroom cloud expanding over a block 'R'. Not many people realize the area's contribution to ending the deadliest war in the history of mankind or the real reason for the adoption of the nickname: Area workers contributed a day's pay to build a B-17 for the war effort.

People don't have a sense of history, and on many occasions... such as the changing of the nickname "Missionaries"... have lost sight of the historical implications the nicknames or mascots were originally intended to represent. All they care about is some contrived insult or insensitivity.

[HumanCockroach]

I highly doubt a term used to describe a races skin, especially one that Europeans killed, raped and exterminated at will is a "contrived" insult, or history people should be happy, or content to proudly hold on to.

I'm personally not offended by the word, however I'm also not offended by the slur associated with my ethnicity, that said, I highly doubt the Chicago Wops would be welcomed at any point by my ancestors or current relatives, despite it being an acronym. That teams stadium, offices etc would more than likely have a series of unknown fires, explosions etc.

Quite a stretch equating a job, or machine to a slur or term used to describe an entire race.

[RiverDog]

I highly doubt a term used to describe a races skin, especially one that Europeans killed, raped and exterminated at will is a "contrived" insult, or history people should be happy, or content to proudly hold on to.

I'm personally not offended by the word, however I'm also not offended by the slur associated with my ethnicity, that said, I highly doubt the Chicago Wops would be welcomed at any point by my ancestors or current relatives, despite it being an acronym. That teams stadium, offices etc would more than likely have a series of unknown fires, explosions etc.

Quite a stretch equating a job, or machine to a slur or term used to describe an entire race.

Don't act as if the Europeans were the only ones to have killed, raped, and exterminated others. The very story behind the Whitman Missionaries is one of treachery and murder of unarmed and completely innocent human beings at the hands of a group of Native Americans.

That's one of the problems I have with the reasoning behind this particular name change. The Whitman Missionaries were completely innocent, inoffensive group of people that reached out to all people no matter what their race, and history is being revised to depict them as some sort of wild west Nazi's that are not representative of an institution that considers themselves "inclusive."

[HumanCockroach]

Whatever RD. Justify it however you feel necessary.

[RiverDog]

How about (in no particular order, literally off the top my head):

The American flag?
Gender specific pronouns?
God?
The color pink?
Mexican food?
Sorority parties?
Males working more hours?
Expecting men to shower in men's bathrooms?

Etc, etc, so on and so forth, virtually to infinity.

If one were to apply the standards of the Whitman controversy, the possible insults from mascots, nicknames, and logos are endless. IMO much of it is the imagination gone wild of rebels without a cause that can't think of anything else better to b**** about.

I wonder if anyone is offended by the nickname "Fighting Irish"? That cartoon image of a little leprechaun putting up his dukes? What's different about that image and the teethy grin on the Cleveland Indians logo that many people feel is offensive?

When you think about it, those that honestly feel that nicknames like Redskins is offensive (CBob, Roach) should be madder than hell at Whitman College as their admittedly laughable, absurd case distracts from the cause of the more legitimate concerns raised by the Redskins nickname.

[burrrton]

Don't act as if the Europeans were the only ones to have killed, raped, and exterminated others.

Also don't act as if murder/rape/extermination are the only 'legitimate' causes of offense.

If you want to go down the rabbit hole of modern Relativism, where something is offensive merely by the act of anyone claiming it is, you get to deal with the asinine BS along with more legitimate claims.

Enjoy the bed you made.

[HumanCockroach]

When you think about it, those that honestly feel that nicknames like Redskins is offensive (CBob, Roach) should be madder than hell at Whitman College as their admittedly laughable, absurd case distracts from the cause of the more legitimate concerns raised by the Redskins nickname

Why in the world would I be upset with a school CHOOSING on their own accord to change a name of a mascot on their own accord because THEY feel it isn't all inclusive ( just like missionaries of history). No one complained about the mascot, the school CHOSE to replace it, just like my father's Hornet mascot. It doesn't change, detract or alter anything.

[obiken]

I really should drop commenting on this thread. However, why not the SF Yellowskins? Sorry the Redskins is racist, the Missionaries is like CB said is just a dumb mascot. Being a Duck I have always asked Beaver, isn't that the name of a Magazine?

[RiverDog]

I really should drop commenting on this thread. However, why not the SF Yellowskins? Sorry the Redskins is racist, the Missionaries is like CB said is just a dumb mascot. Being a Duck I have always asked Beaver, isn't that the name of a Magazine?

Sorry, Obi, but If I were choosing a nickname for a team, the Ducks would rank just barely above Missionaries. At least Beavers has the distinction of being the state motto.

I've seen some weird nicknames over the years...like the Evergreen State Geoducks and the Alaska-Anchorage Sourdoughs (Now Sea Wolves).

[c_hawkbob]

Well if that's the criteria Ducks has a definite PNW feel to it as well, the rest of the country has always said "Yeah the weather's great there, if you're a duck!"

[burrrton]

Sorry the Redskins is racist, the Missionaries is like CB said is just a dumb mascot.

It's striking how quickly we start considering our opinions more sacred than others' given the right situation, isn't it?

[Oly]

As a leftist college professor who finds the Washington team name incredibly offensive, I cannot find anything offensive about Missionaries. It's a dumb mascot, and as someone who did missionary work as a younger man, I now find the work of missionaries to be a bit narcissistic and off-putting, but not offensive.

But as HC said, if a school wants to change it for their own reasons, then I guess I don't care one way or another. If I was a prof on that campus, I'd just as soon change it for the more banal reason that I would probably get sick of culture warriors grilling me about the name and making me justify it, but I wouldn't think they were right about it.


(Now, the broader leftist culture in higher ed right now that finds offense all over the place and wants places that are safe from ideas they don't like pisses me off. The liberalism I embrace is, by definition, open to others and their ideas. Freaking out on anyone who doesn't toe your particular brand of liberal ideology isn't liberal at all. A few years ago, my favorite group of fellow profs to have conversations with a few years ago was a group of very conservative, very religious guys. We hated everything each other had to say, but the conversations were lively and fun because we all enjoyed the beer in the pitcher and respected each other. I think the posters in here are absolutely right to decry the intellectual climate on many campuses right now.

I think that they've taken a good and necessary idea and run completely amok with it. But, just like Peter calling wolf when there weren't any, I now almost reflexively write off any call of microaggressions and safe spaces. It's too bad, because there are probably some legit ones in there, but they're so buried under the sh*t heap of people saying it's offensive to see someone wear a Trump hat that I don't care to listen.

Sorry for the rant. It felt good to type, even if most in here won't give two sh*ts about it.)