Hacker News Reader

Comment by rurounijones | Hacker News Reader

> In keeping with the operation’s naming theme, the testers nicknamed the instrument subs for Native American women, using terms that aren’t very polite. We’ll refer to them as “tubs.”

Lets not redact history for modern sensibilities, history is dirty and does not conform to our wishes, they were called "Squaws", now continue reading the article.

> The bang might have deafened every whale in the Pacific.

Now that is an interesting, and quite scary thought, talk about possible unforeseen consequences. What would have happened if sealife were to be deafened.

There is a short video of the test on wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Wigwam

View on HN

As often said, I came to make a similar comment. The "history is dirty" part may not be totally correct, though: the controversy over squaw may be due to modern hypersensitivity. It is widely believed that this term is used to refer to female sexual parts, this simply is not true, e.g. see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Squaw#Claims_of_obscene_meaning or http://www.nativeweb.org/pages/legal/squaw.html.

I actually meant dirty in the sense of "It is not clean and clear-cut" but that was interesting information.

I actually didn't know that term was offensive before reading this article.

See comments above you; It's not, unless you're hypersensitive.

Let's rename Squaw Valley! (http://squawalpine.com/) BTW, it hosted a Winter Olympic.

(just to make sure: this is a joke proposal)

It has been used as a slur by white people at least since the late 19th Century. Many native peoples say it is offensive. Are you calling them hypersensitive? Speak carefully now.

>Speak carefully now.

I really dislike this comment.

The implication is that: Only a racist would disagree with me. You're not a racist are you? Speak carefully now.

> The implication is that: Only a racist would disagree with me.

rquantz is stating clearly that the word is offensive and implying therefore it's wrong to use it. If that is an issue, I believe it certainly should be raised.

What's interesting is that drawing attention to such things is now what is 'politically incorrect'.

pie rouge, oui monsieur?

It _may_ be offensive to some, and not to others. "Niggardly" may be offensive to some, and not to others.

We should always be respectful of what might offend folks. But we should also strive to make sure the other folks aren't intellectually handicapped and unable to discern a slander from just a word. If the term has no negative connotation until 40-ish years ago, and all of the negative connotation was fabricated out of thin air? That's at least as notable as the fact that it might offend some. Probably more so.

Our mutual desire to live in a friendly society is always at odds with our mutual desire to know what the hell we're talking about. Each of us has an obligation to, in as kind a manner as possible, educate the other about what they might find truly offensive or not if they were better educated. Otherwise civil discourse is just a contest to see who can be offended the most.

PC is being a weasel and not having the discussion. PC is not trying to kindly point out that there may be another side to things. PC's definition has not changed.

On the other hand, no one has the right not to be offended.

I'm not sure where the assumption that "I'm not allowed to be offended" has somehow become implicit in society, but it's a false assumption. You have no such right.

While some people may think they have a right not to be offended, it is not necessary for it to be a right in order for us to avoid using words like this, which have been historically used to denigrate a class of people while simultaneously depriving them of life and property. We of the ruling class would do well to keep in mind the historical narratives that helped us solidify our power, and do our best to avoid them in the present.

Edit: The downvotes are very instructive. HN: your privilege is showing.

If you ask asses not to be asses, turns out they get really mad.

> On the other hand, no one has the right not to be offended.

It has nothing to do with legal rights. We have the right to say anything we want to each other and to our mothers (short of a death threat), but that doesn't mean we should.

Throughout the history of humanity, most would say you have a social 'right' (not a legal one) to be treated with respect. That includes not being insulted.

> If the term has no negative connotation until 40-ish years ago, and all of the negative connotation was fabricated out of thin air?

Don't dismiss the power of the "euphemism treadmill" to change the connotation of a word over time.

These are merely more disingenuous arguments. Not everything is worth discussing -- especially when all the other person offers is political posturing poorly disguised as rationality. At least if you want to posture, be open about it.

If we start to avoid every word because someone think it is offensive we better start building our own kind of Neusprech right away.

> If we start to avoid every word because someone think it is offensive we better start building our own kind of Neusprech right away.

Yet that is how humans always have communicated, avoiding saying offensive words; it's a tradition at least as old as the Ten Commandments and probably as old as human culture.

Stating that a word is offensive in some context doesn't in any way imply that it's wrong to use it in general.

A word - any word - is offensive when and if used to offend someone, but it doesn't make the words as such taboo. Various words such as 'squaw', 'nigger', 'faggot', 'retard', 'raghead', 'chink', 'kike' (did I miss some whole class of slurs? These come from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_pejorative_terms_for_p...) are the appropriate words to use in some contexts such as the meta-context of discussing political correctness, or historical literature (e.g. Uncle Tom) or descriptions of names as they were used back then - as in this topic, the original article about naming those submarine-like objects.

Yep. Have two friends call each other by "offensive" words and they laugh about it. but if a external party walks up and use the same term, they are liable rip him apart.

Well, I can tell you the implication I intended: saying that a group of people who was hunted to the brink of extinction by the ancestors of the people who now live here are being oversensitive is a dangerous line of thought, which, yes, has the potential to reveal racism. So if you're going to pursue that argument, you better think, and speak, carefully.

a group of people who was hunted to the brink of extinction by the ancestors of the people who now live here

Human history in a nutshell, really. Just about every country's founding has a history of blood and conquest. They're just pieces of land, after all. Their ownership always has and always will change.

Here is a better video from youtube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ku7R1TSBfjI

Thanks for this. Redacting history for political correctness purposes is essentially Orwellian, no matter the intention.

> Lets not redact history for modern sensibilities, history is dirty and does not conform to our wishes, they were called ..., now continue reading the article.

Like many similar statements, the real message of rurounijones' comment is about aggressiveness. By intentionally behaving badly (being offensive, smug, etc.) they hope to intimidate others who would disagree but don't want a fight, or to be modded down. It adds nothing to the discussion and does not belong on HN.

Some situations in life can be complicated, but in this case it's simple to treat people with respect; the author did it and we should too.

History is history, it is written fact (usually), if someone is going to write about historical record, like in this article, then they should report it accurately rather than through a "Modern sensibilty" filter.

Feel free to clarify: For example "they were unfortunately called 'squaws' which is an offensive term" or something like that.

(A) educates (and means I don't have to go to wikipedia to find the missing information) and

(B) educates about why it might be better not to use this word (I certainly didn't know it is considered offensive by some)

instead of treating us like children.

When old episodes of Tom and Jerry were released on DVD featuring a "stereotypical" black housewife they did not cut them or alter them. They simply put a message before the episodes explaining that they are not appropriate nowadays but the environment they were created in is not the same as it is today.

Fun fact: When the Dambusters blew the Moehne Dam in WWII they transmitted "Nigger Nigger Nigger" on the radio to signal success.

* Did they do it because they were racists? No (Name of the squadron mascot dog).

* Would I recommend using this word in military operations now? Hell no.

* Would I expect an article about the raid to change or omit the word? No.

* Is the use of the dog's name causing controversy? Unfortunately yes.

TBH I'm sure the military nowadays hasn't improved in that respect; "sand niggers" is a term I've heard a few times, and I'm sure there's more terms like that used to refer to 'enemy combatants'.

What's your point? That anecdotally you've heard that someone in the military used a term that's offensive, and you then therefore conclude that the military is just as racist now as it was then?

You're wrong. The US military used to be segregated back then, now it's not and actually desegregated before the rest of the country. As proof of a watershed change, the former chairman of the joint chiefs was African American, there are many minority generals and admirals in the US military, the military has a robust EEO program and outright quotas for leadership positions, including for officers. And much more.

It's not helpful to assert nothing's changed based on an anecdote, clearly a lot has changed.

"Military service" is correlated with "conservative politics" which is correlated with "racism".

If they weren't racists they would have given the dog a different name.

You are making assumptions of others motives based on your knowledge and emotions regarding the word which is different from people in the UK 60 odd years ago.

"Nigger" was a reasonably common name for black dogs then. There are a few other notable examples on the wikipedia page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nigger_%28dog%29

People in the UK were racist as fuck back in the 40s (not as much as, say, white US southerners, of course)

Ok, let me put it another way. Prove the dog was called "Nigger" because Guy Gibson was racist... and "He must be racist otherwise he wouldn't have called the dog that" does not count since that is circular reasoning.

Unless the dog's name came from racist motivations the name itself (and the word) loses racial overtones UNLESS the listener decides to add them again in which case it is the listener who is at fault for assigning motivations the speaker (namer) in this case, didn't have.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com