NEVER use that word again!

I grew up in an area of California with a large population of Hmongs (pronounced Mong)

We had a large Hmong population in Providence, RI as well.

I think that the way I used the word as a child is still prevalent in the US (not saying it's right), but the British do (and rightly so I would say) consider it horribly offensive.

The term 'spastic' to refer to people with CP hasn't always been considered offensive in the UK. The CP charity shop in Haverfordwest, Wales, is still called 'The Spastic Shop'. The sign still says that and everyone knows it as that.

I'm not saying it's right in 2013, but at one time it was the word that was commonly used.

The term 'spastic' to refer to people with CP hasn't always been considered offensive in the UK. The CP charity shop in Haverfordwest, Wales, is still called 'The Spastic Shop'. The sign still says that and everyone knows it as that.

I'm not saying it's right in 2013, but at one time it was the word that was commonly used.

I think they should choose a new name, as times have moved on & 'tradition' is no excuse for being offensive any longer - Scope was formerly called by a similar name but they changed names in 1994, nearly 20 years ago. They wouldn't get away with calling themselves 'The Ret@rd Shop' or 'The Golliwogs Shop' in this day & age. I find it odd that they claim to be (presumably?) collecting to help a group of persons that they are simultaneously insulting at the same time. 

More on the Scope name change - which appears to have taken the views of people with the condition on board = a good thing! 

And here's me thinking it's someone who wears a lot of leather. 

A couple of weeks ago, DH and I were in London for the weekend and we were taking the lift up to our room after we had checked in at the hotel Friday night.  Well, wasn't everyone in for a surprise when we got to our floor, the doors slid open, and there were three big burly dudes standing there all in rubber, including one of those types 'who wears a lot of leather' on a leash, waiting for the lift.  DH said one of them was 'giggling' (his word, not mine) at our little run-in.  I wish now I'd asked them where the party was.

Just because a word was once commonly used and no-one thought it was offensive at the time doesn't mean it was OK.

I mean in the 1950s (and beyond) African Americans were referred to as colored people.  Even by some African Americans.  The majority of African Americans don't like that term to be used anymore, so we don't.

My old manager refused to take on board that gollywog dolls are racist.  I tried to explain that they are a charicature of Afro-Carribbean people (like dressing up in 'black face' a la Al Jolson) and that makes it racist.  The same with the logo and name for the Red Skins baseball team.  I don't know if they ever changed it, but Native American elders wanted them to as *they* felt it was racist.  Even if back when it was designed the intention wasn't to be racist.

I think they should choose a new name, as times have moved on & 'tradition' is no excuse for being offensive any longer

Just because a word was once commonly used and no-one thought it was offensive at the time doesn't mean it was OK.

I'm not saying I think it's OK. I'm saying that the charity itself which supports people with CP and which raises money for this cause calls the shop that. It's not me.

I'm not saying I think it's OK.

Yes, I understood that & my response wasn't intended towards you personally but rather disagreeing with the shop persisting in using an offensive term for the people they mean to be helping.

I'm not saying I think it's OK. I'm saying that the charity itself which supports people with CP and which raises money for this cause calls the shop that. It's not me.

I realize that, I'm not upset with you!  Like Mrs R my complaint is with the charity and people like my old manager.

I'm not upset with you either & sorry if you thought that! 

No, I know you're not!

But I will say that none of you would last a minute in our un-PC house. And that's all I'm saying. 

The same with the logo and name for the Red Skins baseball team.  I don't know if they ever changed it, but Native American elders wanted them to as *they* felt it was racist.  Even if back when it was designed the intention wasn't to be racist.

The owner of the NFL's Washington Redskins, Dan Snyder, recently said he'd never change the name of the team:

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2013/05/09/snyder-says-redskins-will-never-change-name/

At a time when the Redskins are receiving more pressure than ever to change their name but not nearly enough to move the needle in the direction of actually changing it, the man who calls the shots has settled the debate.

“We will never change the name of the team,” Snyder tells Erik Brady of USA Today.  “As a lifelong Redskins fan, and I think that the Redskins fans understand the great tradition and what it’s all about and what it means, so we feel pretty fortunate to be just working on next season.”

Pressed on whether any external forces could force a change, Snyder became strident:  “We’ll never change the name.  It’s that simple.  NEVER — you can use caps.”

And a bit about the racist history of the team's name:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/06/01/the-racist-redskins.html

[George Preston Marshall] is the man who gave the Washington Redskins their name. He was one of the most despicable racists in the American sporting arena of the entire 20th century. He thought Redskins was funny, just as he thought the war paint and feather headdress he made the head coach wear were funny. And this is the legacy that current Redskins owner Dan Snyder wants to uphold?

You’ve been reading about this name lately. More and more people are calling for the team to change it. There is legislation in Congress, based on the fact that under trademark legislation passed in 1946, a corporate “mark” can’t be disparaging of a people or group. Snyder says he’ll change the name approximately never (“and you can put that in all caps”). Most Americans, and most Redskins fans, agree with him. But all that shows is that those Americans and fans don’t know the history. [Current team owner Dan] Snyder, presumably, does. He should be ashamed.

(I'm a Cowboys fan, and I absolutely hate the Redskins with the white-hot passion of a thousand burning suns.)

There's a scene in Iron Man 3 where Robert Downey Jr has a panic attack, and he tells the young boy who is helping him that he was 'totally spazzing out.' Having remembered the previous discussion on UK-Y about the term, I was surprised that a change wasn't requested for the UK version.

That is so funny.  I read your posts, and when I realised yours had changed, I looked back at mine. My last post was written with the word "ret@ard" in it as well saying I had similar feelings about how people commonly use that one, and it changed my post as well.  I didn't say "stupid" I said the other word.  How funny that it not only changed my word as well, but to something completely different--not "idiot" but "stupid." I guess it's a multiple choice editing software.

Fortunately, I wasn't caught out on this because another American friend told me about it shortly after I moved here (as she had been caught out, embarrassingly) - it's the word - spaz.

The best cat I ever had was named Spaz, by his previous owner.  I took him in when he was abandoned (several years old) and never changed his name.  It broke my heart when the lymphoma robbed his health and dignity to the point where I had to put him down. 

As for the "re" word, the slang usage is detestable.  When I was a child, it was a medical diagnosis of a condition that the person couldn't help having.  I've never used it to mean "foolish," or "stupid," and never will.  I didn't tolerate my daughter doing it either. 

(I'm a Cowboys fan, and I absolutely hate the Redskins with the white-hot passion of a thousand burning suns.)

I know nothing was meant by this comment, but it's another good example of why Native mascots are problematic. This is a great article, but the pictures (a fake skewered "Indian" head) are pretty disturbing, so I'll quote the relevant part:
"This proves it, without a doubt. Native American mascots are demeaning, stereotyping, and harmful to Native people. The Blackhawks logo is often touted as a “good” image–not evil or stupid looking, nothing like chief wahoo or the other blatantly racist images. But “good” image or not (and I still stand that no Indian mascot is a good mascot), clearly this demonstrates the danger when fans are given control over a mascot and image. There is no excuse for this man’s actions.

That’s one area mascot debates rarely cover–the actions of rival team’s fans and how they affect Native people. When an entire arena is shouting things like “Beat the Indians!” “Scalp the Redskins!” “F*@! the Blackhawks!” Can you imagine how it would feel to be a Native person hearing those things?"

On a related note, but more on the thread topic, while I am mostly white, and certainly pass as white, I have a fairly significant amount of NDN ancestry, which my father-in-law finds absolutely fascinating. And while he is an otherwise very nice man, he just can't not refer to Native Americans as "Red Indians" even though I have repeatedly told him it's a racial slur. And that's not as bad as the time he greeted me by holding up his hand and saying "how". And war-whooped. *sigh* 

That’ And that's not as bad as the time he greeted me by holding up his hand and saying "how". And war-whooped. *sigh* 

Oh dear .

That’s one area mascot debates rarely cover–the actions of rival team’s fans and how they affect Native people. When an entire arena is shouting things like “Beat the Indians!” “Scalp the Redskins!” “F*@! the Blackhawks!” Can you imagine how it would feel to be a Native person hearing those things?"

Wow, you're right--not good.  As a person who does not attend sporting events, I hadn't even thought of that part.