“…The expression “going off the reservation” has a presupposition that the person to whom it is referring is some sort of lesser person that doesn’t deserve to be in general society. Since reservations are (for people in this country) reserved for Native Americans, there is a racist context to it. It would be the equivalent of saying to someone, “why don’t you go back to the ghetto where you belong.”

Am I missing something here. I do not intent to be offensive but since when do Native Americans have to live on a reservation? Isn’t that a choice? I have never thought about anyone in this Country having to live in a designate area. I thought it was a choice in live in whatever state, county, city, town, village, etc. This is very confusing to me, guess I am not PC in culturals!!!

Ok “kettle”. Is that your first or last name?

Peace pipe ? too funny

Just to clarify:
I think the the speaker was wrong to use a racial slur.
I think the board member was wrong to cuss him out.
I think the author of this article was wrong to demand an apology.

A quick apology at the moment a mistake was make is the polite thing to do. But it doesn’t fix the problem.

The board member demanding an apology shows either grandstanding or an inability to mentally deal with something that happened generations ago.

The author of this article demanding an apology from the board member shows the same thing.

If you have to demand an apology after time has passed, then you have a problem with yourself, because the late apology has no teeth and fixes no problem.

I hope you don’t mean smoke a peace pipe. You might have to go on an apology tour of your own.

I for one do not want to pay for her running her mouth and letting something stupid escape, such as what her sexual preference is or telling the Water Board to go F themselves during the next round of hearings.

Put a choke collar on that woman and tie her up outside.

Off the reservation. LoL?

Those who don’t take the time to consider the impact of their words (or care about them) seem to be the ones who complain most about “political correctness.” Granted, “PC” can be taken to ridiculous extremes but it seems to me that someone who is routinely careless about use of words and labels is either being intellectually lazy, slightly sociopathic or lacks the ability to make a coherent point on a subject. Deflecting criticism of that by accusing the offended person of being “thin-skinned” does not reflect well on one’s character.

Comments indicating distaste for someone based on race, ethnic origin, sex (including sexual preferences), or most other groupings of people by characteristics not of their own choosing should not be used by people who want to be considered decent and civilized human beings. Banning their use in publicly sponsored forums (i.e. citizen comment periods at meetings) is not unreasonable. This could be moderated by an explanation of why such comments are offensive if it is not patently obvious that they are. Not everyone knows the cultural context that makes some comments offensive.

Similarly, profanity should probably be treated likewise, since it is offensive to many people — although I really can’t see a reason why “f**k” is offensive and “copulate” or even “screw” are mostly acceptable. This is changing culturally and may not be much of an issue in another 10 years. I am more annoyed by the fact that profanity is often used as a substitute for thinking enough to express oneself intelligently. Someone who uses “f**k” and its variants frequently for emotional emphasis or just out of habit shows themselves to be verbally deficient in my judgment.

Finally, where “PC” becomes a problem to me is when it is used to deflect honest criticism of someone’s views or behaviors. If someone disagrees with an idea or action, take the time to explain why and stop saying “Oooh, that’s offensive. You are a (insert label here.)”

While there are some (OK, a lot of) people who refuse to consider other ideas and keep repeating the same views over and over, it is best to just ignore them at that point rather than wasting your energy on indignation. The same applies to people who rely on simplistic labels (“liberal lunatics”, “right-wing fanatics”) to make their arguments rather than using coherent points. They may be offensive in one sense but not at a level that justifies silencing them. After a while, anyone who is not on the same wavelength as they are can see them for what they are and will disregard them too.

I will tell you what it means to someone who grew up near Indian reservations — ones with serious problems with racial discrimination.

The expression “going off the reservation” has a presupposition that the person to whom it is referring is some sort of lesser person that doesn’t deserve to be in general society. Since reservations are (for people in this country) reserved for Native Americans, there is a racist context to it. It would be the equivalent of saying to someone, “why don’t you go back to the ghetto where you belong.”

That said, through ignorance and thoughtlessness, the expression has also come to be used to indicate that the speaker thinks someone has exceeded their authority. I suspect that this is what Mr. Edwards meant when he used it in regard to SSLOCSD manager, Rick Sweet. That doesn’t make it right but it would make it a more forgivable comment.

I think that Ms. Lucey over-reacted — especially since the comment wasn’t aimed at her — but she should be allowed to point out and object to the racist connotations of the comment. Previous friction between Ms. Lucey and Mr. Edwards will likely prevent her from accepting the idea that he may not have been intentionally racist and will likely prevent him from offering even a limited apology to her (or Mr. Sweet who probably deserves it more.)

http://www.auditor.ca.gov/bsa/high_risk

whatsinaname says:” once a person is comfortable in their skin and know who they are, they don’t need apologies to make them feel right.”

While that would make a great t-shirt for Adam Hill, it has nothing to do with the standard of decorum that should be self evident, for a meeting of the citizens and public officials doing the public’s work.

Both of you would likely respond in a different way if that was you (real name) in that public hall on the receiving end.

” Those that do are mentally weak.” sez the person behind an anonymous monicker.