6 ms·

> 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

> 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 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Wigwam

rdl 12y ago
I actually didn't know that term was offensive before reading this article.
- GauntletWizard 12y ago
  See comments above you; It's not, unless you're hypersensitive.
  - lsh123 12y ago
    Let's rename Squaw Valley! (http://squawalpine.com/ http://squawalpine.com/) BTW, it hosted a Winter Olympic. (just to make sure: this is a joke proposal)
  - rquantz 12y ago
    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.
    - learc83 12y ago
      >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.
      - hackuser 12y ago
        > 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'.
        001sky 12y ago
        pie rouge, oui monsieur?
        DanielBMarkham 12y ago
        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.
        laichzeit0 12y ago
        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.
        rquantz 12y ago
Jun8 12y ago
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 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Squaw#Claims_of_obscene_meaning or http://www.nativeweb.org/pages/legal/squaw.html http://www.nativeweb.org/pages/legal/squaw.html.
- rurounijones 12y ago
  I actually meant dirty in the sense of "It is not clean and clear-cut" but that was interesting information.
  - higuesswho 12y ago
    Less talk, more walk. =]
hackuser 12y ago
> 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.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- rurounijones 12y ago
  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. It (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.
  - Cthulhu_ 12y ago
    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'.
ryan_j_naughton 12y ago
Here is a better video from youtube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ku7R1TSBfjI http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ku7R1TSBfjI
blueskin_ 12y ago
Thanks for this. Redacting history for political correctness purposes is essentially Orwellian, no matter the intention.

rdl 12y ago

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

GauntletWizard 12y ago
See comments above you; It's not, unless you're hypersensitive.
- lsh123 12y ago
  Let's rename Squaw Valley! (http://squawalpine.com/ http://squawalpine.com/) BTW, it hosted a Winter Olympic. (just to make sure: this is a joke proposal)
- rquantz 12y ago
  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.
  - learc83 12y ago
    >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.
    - hackuser 12y ago
      > 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'.
      - 001sky 12y ago
        pie rouge, oui monsieur?
      - DanielBMarkham 12y ago
        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.
        laichzeit0 12y ago
        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.
        rquantz 12y ago

Jun8 12y ago

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 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Squaw#Claims_of_obscene_meaning or http://www.nativeweb.org/pages/legal/squaw.html http://www.nativeweb.org/pages/legal/squaw.html.

rurounijones 12y ago
I actually meant dirty in the sense of "It is not clean and clear-cut" but that was interesting information.
- higuesswho 12y ago
  Less talk, more walk. =]

hackuser 12y ago

> 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.

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
rurounijones 12y ago
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. It (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.
- Cthulhu_ 12y ago
  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'.

ryan_j_naughton 12y ago

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

blueskin_ 12y ago

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