Your own limited experience isn’t necessarily a reliable metric, though. For example, I spent a good few years of my life not being aware that the word “Jap” is widely considered racist, as I apparently didn’t know anyone who thought it was; and then, whoopsie. :eek:
It isnt “widely” (it wasnt banned here until fairly recently) but certainly more than the Betsey Ross flag.
It’s still in common use as in “Jap Bike”. But calling someone a “Jap” except as “Jewish American Princess” is not very nice at all.
:rolleyes: Is it ever possible to get you to stop naively assuming that your own individual experience is the ultimate determinant of whether a cultural phenomenon actually exists or not? Dude, I have in front of me a copy of Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary from nineteen-seventy-fucking-seven, and its entry for the word “Jap” reads “Japanese—usu. used disparagingly”.
So you simply don’t know what you’re talking about when you try to claim that “Jap” is not “widely” recognized, or not till “fairly recently”, as a derogatory racial slur.
In 1950, you could make exactly the same argument for the swastika…
You think calling someone a Jewish American Princess is nice?
That’s a pretty goddam weak analogy. In 1950 the swastika wasn’t just something that had relatively recently been used by “some group of dumbass racists”; it had been the official emblem–and overwhelmingly used as a symbol of–a political movement which first established absolute control over one of the world’s leading industrial powers, and then managed (with the help of various allies, satellite states, and puppet regimes) to temporarily conquer most of Europe and a good piece of North Africa, spreading devastation and terror from the Atlantic to the Volga, and in the process committing enormous atrocities, up to and including genocide and the mass murder of millions of people.
Is it? I’d argue it’s too soon to tell, and how you go in the next few years determines if that is “pretty goddam[sic] weak”, or prescient.
…the USA is currently headed by an open racist, currently runs concentration camps for one ethnicity and currently imprisons another at ridiculously disproportionate rates. And it’s spent many *decades *, oh, spreading “devastation and terror” from South America to Baghdad.
Yes, the Nazis were in some ways worse - after conquering the Native Americans, the USA hasn’t again committed outright genocide.
Yet.
The hell I could. The idea is absolutely absurd.
Has the U.S. done some horrible things, and doing somethings that are horrid right now? Of course. But then, by YOUR logic, you could also make the same argument about the British flag, or the French flag, or the German, or Russian, etc.
(Hell, the British invented the concentration camp)
And before anyone accuses me of “what about”, I’m not trying that tactic. More as, if we start saying, “this symbol is bad, because it’s from a time back when people did X”, then we can’t have any symbols.
I’m tired of extremeists. I’m tired of the whole, “MY side is all pure and good, YOUR side is evil and ugly”. My side isn’t pure and good. But not everyone who disagrees is a fucking Nazi.
I happily would when it’s relevant.
Are you under the mistaken impression I just don’t like *American *tyranny? How I feel about recent American hegemony is *nothing *compared to what I feel about the British Empire.
The Union Jack is worse than if the Swastika and the Hammer-and-Sickle were rolled into one flag.
No, they didn’t. The Spanish did.
I’m not talking about “people who disagree”, I’m talking about actual “fucking Nazis”
And you have no idea what my “side” even is.
While you were reading that dictionary you shoudl have looked up "Disparaging | Definition of Disparaging by Merriam-Webster: to belittle the value or importance of someone or something : serving or intended to disparage someone or something a disparaging term/word … disparaging comments from ordinarily sane and sympathetic critics …—
Not the same as “derogatory racial slur”.
NOW, if you look it up it sez “disparaging + offensive” Jap Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster
And I grew up in Gardena. That likely means little to you, but Gardena was mostly Japanese American.
Well, at least we agree on one thing. Although I don’t think the Union Jack is their “flag-flag”, but it was one of their military flags. Was I wrong?
I thought the first use of them was during the Boer War. If I’m wrong, please correct me.
Never claimed I did.
I did not mean YOU specifically, but as a general, rhetorical you. Maybe I spend too much time on social media, but all I ever hear is, “you disagree with me, therefore, you are evil,” it seems. And THAT scares me. Maybe I’m wrong. I don’t like extremists. Or they automatically assume they know your positions.
And once again, this is not directed at you, MrDibble, or at anyone here specifically.
One thing I will say though – these asswipes better not go NEAR the Jolly Roger. THAT belongs to Pittsburgh!
Oh, so you’re conceding that the term “Jap” is widely recognized as racist? You weren’t before:
If the notion that the term is offensive has made it into the dictionary, then yeah, I think we can say that its offensive status as a racial slur is widely recognized.
Yes, you’re wrong.
This stuffis trivial to look up for yourself, you know…and I *did *correct you, it’s right there in my post.
For those of you who do not encounter “Jap” very often, I will point out that it has been recognized as insulting and inappropriate for polite society for many years.
I had a paper marked down for using it in a neutral sense in 1965 and, of course, there was a huge flap over Spiro Agnew’s use of it in 1968. (One of the few times Agnew took flak over a misunderstanding and not over a deliberate insult.)
Nike’s spokesperson said they were concerned about unintentionally offending people and did not want to detract from the holiday. This is not the same as taking an anti-racist stance, it’s a stance defined by not wanting to offend those who believe the Betsy Ross flag is a symbol of white supremacism.
Siding with anti-racists and not with racists* is *an anti-racist stance.
They’re siding with Nike and their spokesperson. There’s no reason to look into it any deeper than this, and their explanation for their decision doesn’t say any more than that. Taking a tepid stance against a symbol you’re not quite sure is offensive and completely unsure is racist isn’t an anti-racist stance. It’s just confusion and insecurity. Or awareness of the sentiments and behavior of the people who buy your shoes.
Their antiracist spokesperson.
CK’s objection was the only thing involved. I’m just wondering why he didn’t object when Obama displayed it during his inauguration.