Is What Dan Issel said really that offensive?

I thought he called him a dirty mexican. Either way I don't think it's a racial slur as the media has been calling it because I've seen hundreds of dirty mexicans as well as dirty americans, germans, italians, puerto ricans, russians, etc. They just need to go take a shower and they won't be dirty anymore.

 

I view it as being offensive for three reasons:

1. I have friends who are Latino/Mexican/Hispanic. I would NEVER EVER say that to them or refer to them in that way if I was in a heated conversation. NEVER. It would be disrespectful in the worst way and I know they would find it offensive. I'm certain that Issel would not say something like that to a friend knowing the racial implications, so why say it to someone else?

2. Most Mexicans I know would find what he said offensive. It doesn't really matter what I think as a white guy. If Mexicans find the statement offensive, that is their decision. It is not up to us (as whites) to make that decision for them.

3. Most importantly of all, the very fact that he considered and used the term "Mexican" as a part of a crude insult indicates that he considers the term "Mexican" to be a part of the overall insult. By example, he wouldn't say, "You ****ing American piece of ****." He would just say "You ****ing piece of ****." The very fact that he brought race into it indicates that he equates the behavior of the fan to that of Mexicans, in general.

My belief is that you don't say something rude in the first place, but if you bring race or ethnicity or nationality into it AT ALL, it makes the insult much worse.

 

Like I heard today....it's not like it was just an attempt to use more detailed prose. The word is not offensive, but its use was.

In that context there's not other reason to use the word Mexican unless you think it's in some way a deragatory statement. That's why people see it as offensive.

And why he was so sincere in his apology. He knew.

 

It's called context. Words alone have little meaning without the context around them. I don't think it's really that difficult to grasp, is it?

 

I have to disagree with St. Jeff (and I hate doing that):

Language doesn't just get to be determined by the group most affected by it. As a society, we arrive at a consensus about the general meaning of most words. However, certain words have shifting connotations depending on the speaker and the audience. If Issel meant it one way, and they interpreted it in another, there was a failure of communication. That does not mean that Issel's comments were inherently offensive.

When Ronald Reagan called Jimmy Carter a "liberal," he meant it as a pejorative. Carter, of course, didn't interpret the world liberal that way. That doesn't mean that he couldn't be offended by Reagan's remarks. It was the intent that was important. It was what Reagan meant that mattered in the situation.

I think the same applies here. Personally, I think the best way of finding out what Issel meant is to look at the context of his personal life. If he really has a problem with hispanics, it will come out. If not, he probably didn't mean anything by it and they shouldn't be so upset.

 

Wasn't it "Mexican piece of sh*t"??? Really...how many different ways are there to take that?

Like I said, look at his apology. He was aware of what he did. I do feel bad for the guy, because I think he just lost it at the time. But it doesn't mean his comments weren't offensive.

 

I know what you are saying, haven. However, it is quite different with people of a different race. They were born into it. Liberal is a position, something you can choose. This is not.

Besides, it wasn't about the word, "Mexican." It was, as others have pointed out, about the context in which it was used.

 

I think the same applies here. Personally, I think the best way of finding out what Issel meant is to look at the context of his personal life. If he really has a problem with hispanics, it will come out. If not, he probably didn't mean anything by it and they shouldn't be so upset.

What a crock...

He said it in an offensive way. He meant it to be derogatory.

It's plain to see the context "F***ing Mexican", and his tone is plain to understand. Why didn't he just call him an "idiot"?

It's like when I'm at work and a table leaves lousy tip. Most waiters will bring the table's ethnicity into their complaint. And, I find that offensive. On the other hand, if a person just keeps the complaint within the boundaries of "cheap" and leaves a persons heritage out of it, then I have no problem at all with that.

Most people from Mexico I know have no problem at all being called "Mexicans" (HELLO, they are Mexicans, and usually proud of it). But, I still shy away from calling people, even those I know to be of Mexican origin, "Mexican", just because it can be taken the wrong way. Also, because many people lump all Latin Americans into the "Mexican" category, much like the "Chinese" category is used to lump most Asians.

 

That is what he said, I agree that is offensive

 

Wait a tick, shouldn't this thread be on another board???

 

I think that all the ****ing black people on this board should take their pieces of **** asses out of here to go buy a beer.

 

Since the people I was referring to are black, I guess there's nothing wrong with what I just posted, right?

 

You're sort of making my point for me, in a way. I'm not saying that Issel's comments didn't betray some... dubious cultural assumptions. I'm questioning whether it's of the degree of offensiveness that he should be really critiqued.

You say that people who complain at restraunts often mention ethnicity. Do you really believe every one of these people is a flaming racist? Or do many of them simply hold normative ideas about identity that predominate our culture?

A statement like Issel's can be construed in two ways:

1. The phrase "****ing Mexican" could mean nothing more than you're a ****er and a Mexican. In this case, Mexican is simply an identifier. The Mexican, as opposed to the woman with the tatoo of Santa on her arm.

or the more negative one:

2. "****ing Mexican" might reflect poorly on all Mexicans. If true, this is very bad.

But from my experience, it's just as likely to be either. The first is problematic... but probably so endemic in our society that punishing Issel individually would be hypocritical and meaningless

If the second, he does indeed deserve to be punished.

I just don't like it that people are so PC that they won't consider the first option, which I consider reasonable. Does it hurt to investigate his private life? If you don't find any racism there, it would certainly back 1.

 

What he said was wrong, but give me a break! The Hispanic Council of Denver wants him fired. I swear most of us can be damn hypocrites! Who over here has never ever ever used a racial slur? The guy was crying and he apologized!

We damn americans aint got nothing better to do with our time I guess.

 

In this instance, there is simply no reason to even bother with an identifier unless it contains some other use in the sentiment you are trying to convey. In his own subtle ( ) way, RM95 is making that point above.

I'll give you an example. Say you are at a big family reunion. A huge Haven get together, with crowds of Mr. and Mrs. Havens (ok so I don't know your last name. ) moving about, talking and having a good time.

Then say you and a relative are talking when your least favorite neighbor comes up. He and you get into a heated arguement where tempers really flare. He takes a look at you and your party, all the havens gathered together, and declares that you are nothing but another "Haven piece of sh*t".

Offensive?

 

I look at it like this:

If Isiah Thomas, during a game during which I was severely heckling him, turned around and said, "Why don't you go have a beer, you ****ing white piece of ****?", I would have been offended, but I wouldn't want the guy fired over it.

Certainly Issell screwed up, but I think a lot of people are taking this WAY too far.

 

Rockit:

Metaphor is flawed because one's last name is qualitatively different than ethnicity.

To make the metaphor more appropriate:

I'm walking down the street, and see a black man call a white man that's insulting him a "****ing cracker."

Am I offended? Nope. Didn't apply to me. Just the ****ing cracker that was being a jerk.

 

Never underestimate how easy it is to offend people. Not to defend what Issel said, but I remember that DC staffer getting in all sorts of hot water for using a word that sort of sounded like it might be racially insensitive (*****rdly was the word). Essentially, this guy had to apologize (and resigned his job) because of the ignorance of other people.

That's not the same as Issel's comments, but it does go to show that people are often relatively easy to offend. I agree that there is actually a reason to be offended (while I don't think he was meaning to make an ethnic slur, he shouldn't have said what he said. When angry, we tend to lash out. For example, I might get mad at a friend of mine and call him a ******. That doesn't mean I have anything against fat people - which is good since I am one - or that I meant it to be a slur against fat people, though), but I don't think it's worth firing him over this. I think his coaching is what they should fire him for.

 

The difference is if you are in the minority or majority. It is the majority's responsibility to protect the minority from degrading, dehumanizing statements. That is why what Issel did was worse than '****ing white piece of ****'.