New Post
Search
HelpI don't really care...(m)
in reply to a message by bananarama
Frankly, I don't really care if someone has a bad association with one of my names. That's their problem. I only see it as a problem if it affects my child in a direct way, i.e. if he/she would be bullied because of the name.
If someone wants to name their son Cohen, they should feel free to go ahead with it. It's just a word, and you can't own the word.
If someone wants to name their son Cohen, they should feel free to go ahead with it. It's just a word, and you can't own the word.
This message was edited 8/16/2008, 2:47 PM
Archived Thread - replies disabled
1
Replies
This seems ignorant
Saying that any random words can be used for a name simply because no one "owns" the word seems like a cop-out to me. I don't own the words Aryan, Negro, Cracker, Gypsy, Eskimo, or Cherokee but I find them to be offensive as names for children. Honestly, I don't see the point of the argument that no one owns words and therefore the words are fine as names. I think it is a weak argument used by people who want to use the names in order that they sound less ignorant for using the so called "names."
Ignorance is not always bliss, especially not for the people who are offended by the terms. Why use something offensive to groups of people when there are hundreds of acceptable names?
Saying that any random words can be used for a name simply because no one "owns" the word seems like a cop-out to me. I don't own the words Aryan, Negro, Cracker, Gypsy, Eskimo, or Cherokee but I find them to be offensive as names for children. Honestly, I don't see the point of the argument that no one owns words and therefore the words are fine as names. I think it is a weak argument used by people who want to use the names in order that they sound less ignorant for using the so called "names."
Ignorance is not always bliss, especially not for the people who are offended by the terms. Why use something offensive to groups of people when there are hundreds of acceptable names?
1
Naming a child Aryan, Negro, Cracker or Gypsey would be disrespectful to the child in my opinion. In those cases the name would personally affect the child.
I would not decide against a name because someone somewhere might be offended by it because of their religious beliefs. As far as I'm concerned, it's none of their business.
I would not decide against a name because someone somewhere might be offended by it because of their religious beliefs. As far as I'm concerned, it's none of their business.
1
So religious beliefs are less important that racial makeup? How is one more important than another?
1
That's not what I said, I said that it would be inappropriate to give a child a name that would negatively affect them, e.g. Cracker would no doubt be bullied and embarrassed.
Religious beliefs are a choice, so I don't care if someone is offended because of a lifestyle/philosophical choice that they made. That's their problem, not mine.
Racial makeup? Well, if I wanted to name my child Francis, German, Asia or India I wouldn't consult natives to see if they were offended by it. It doesn't affect them in any way.
Religious beliefs are a choice, so I don't care if someone is offended because of a lifestyle/philosophical choice that they made. That's their problem, not mine.
Racial makeup? Well, if I wanted to name my child Francis, German, Asia or India I wouldn't consult natives to see if they were offended by it. It doesn't affect them in any way.
1
Of course it doesn't affect the people with the name but it may offend them. In fact, more than offending them it would likely just make the namer look ignorant.
Just because a religious belief is a choice doesn't mean that names offensive to that religion are any less offensive than names based on race. Naming a kid Nazi Devil Cult shouldn't be any less offensive than Negro Blackman Hater.
I think that your categorization of what should and should not be considered offensive is nonsensical.
Just because a religious belief is a choice doesn't mean that names offensive to that religion are any less offensive than names based on race. Naming a kid Nazi Devil Cult shouldn't be any less offensive than Negro Blackman Hater.
I think that your categorization of what should and should not be considered offensive is nonsensical.
1
I think you're totally misinterpreting what Hannah Ruth is trying to say.
Naming a kid Nazi Devil Cult or Negro Blackman Hater depicts negativity on a wide range level which is indeed offensive to not only the child possessing the name but to most everyone who comes in contact with that child. It's hateful and such a name is contracted from violent acts and oppression.
Where as naming a child a Jewish surname, such as Cohen depicts no negativity on a wide range level. People may or may not have bad associations with the name or feel that certain people have no 'right' using the Jewish surname. But as Hannah Ruth pointed out... that is their prerogatived. But that doesn't mean that using the surname Cohen and using something hateful such as Nazi Devil Cult are one and the same because they most certainly are not.
Naming a kid Nazi Devil Cult or Negro Blackman Hater depicts negativity on a wide range level which is indeed offensive to not only the child possessing the name but to most everyone who comes in contact with that child. It's hateful and such a name is contracted from violent acts and oppression.
Where as naming a child a Jewish surname, such as Cohen depicts no negativity on a wide range level. People may or may not have bad associations with the name or feel that certain people have no 'right' using the Jewish surname. But as Hannah Ruth pointed out... that is their prerogatived. But that doesn't mean that using the surname Cohen and using something hateful such as Nazi Devil Cult are one and the same because they most certainly are not.
This message was edited 8/17/2008, 8:59 AM
1