Yeah, like I said I'm not surprised that some people didn't learn about it: it's not 1066 or 1492.
But it's not crazily obscure, either, as the post I was replying to insinuated.
Goodbye Gruden and ongoing Snyder investigation discussion
- Thread starter PC Drunken Friar
- Start date
But it's not crazily obscure, either, as the post I was replying to insinuated.
I beg to differ that it's not crazy obscure. It is used every single day, by every single zoning attorney in almost every state. Shit, our Courts and our Judges use the language here in Liberal Massachusetts. I have been practicing real estate law for 20 years now, and I've never, until this thread, heard about the historical basis of the term. Meanwhile, I've heard more people talk about how ordering "Jimmies" is racist, when it's actually not. I honestly don't even know of another term that could be used in place of grandfathered/grandfathering in the context of zoning laws, because I've never heard anyone raise an issue with it. Granted, I don't do much zoning work, but I'm struggling to think of what I could use instead of it and get the point across.
https://www.massachusettsrealestatelawyer-blog.com/massachusetts-court-concludes-grandfathering-law-available-vacant-lots/
Grandfathering is a land use concept that preserves the right to build on property that does not conform to current zoning requirements. While Massachusetts statute G .L. c. 40A, § 6 provides for minimum grandfather protections under local zoning by-laws, a municipality is free to adopt a grandfathering provision that is more liberal than G .L. c. 40A, § 6, provided it does so with clear language. Local by-law § 5.3.2 allows a dwelling to be erected on a plot recorded prior to 1955 that conforms with the lot area and frontage requirements of the 1934 zoning by-law, with no reference to adjoining lots in common ownership.
It's one thing to claim that the term "grandfathering" was used in support of segregatory and racist policies in the post Civil War era. It's another to argue that such usage was the first usage, and therefore must dictate it's usage is a "microagression", especially given that the term has been used in so many other contexts since then, and quite possibly even before then. I think the term in question is one case where the burden of proof needs to be on the accuser.
It’s also literally used in federal law. PPACA exempts from certain of its requirements so-called ‘grandfathered’ plans; plan sponsors and, as applicable, insurers even have to use the term ‘grandfathered’ in their written plans/policies when explaining to enrollees that their plan is not subject to certain PPACA protections.
I do not think there is broad awareness of the American legacy of the term to anywhere near the same degree as common epithets.
I think grandfather is also a close to unique example-- a word that has racist roots (although like sumner i learned them in public school in the 80s--thanks Mr. Bourne wherever you are!) but is broadly used, is super useful, and doesn't have a taint from its history. I can't think of an example like that offhand as lots of other reasonably useful teams bear their history more strongly.
[Not to triviliaze it but there is a whole Jimmies/Sprinkles debate: my brother is highly sensitive to language issues and doesn't refer to sprinkles as Jimmies because maybe that was a name given to chocolate sprinkles to celerbate Jim Crow? It's a debated question factually, my brother's childhood recollection being that Jimmies were the name for brown sprinkles and sprinkles for multicolored sprinklers, my recollection being jimmies and sprinkles were interchangeable, and my personal belief being there's no way there's some sixty plus year old New england usage that somehow celebrates the strange career of Jim Crow.]
[Edit missed DoTB's thoughts on chocolate sprinkles.]
I can tell you that as someone who is responsible for the team who makes most of the content updates to HealthCare.gov that
1. The government has been aware of the issues around the use of "grandfathered" in the PPACA (the Affordable Care Act or ObamaCare) and on HealthCare.gov for almost 8 years
2. The term is still on HealthCare.gov in multiple places
3. We're actively working to get it removed, but the term has become so ubiquitous and easily understood as a single word to describe what can be a complex concept that we are having a hard time finding the best language. (I of course do not speak for the government, nor are these statements attributable to any government official or agency.)
Here is a good primer for anyone who wants more info: https://www.npr.org/sections/codeswitch/2013/10/21/239081586/the-racial-history-of-the-grandfather-clause
This is great info, and, as always, there is always someone on SOSH who touches a particular part of society. I work in the industry, and it’s one of the usages our leadership has felt hamstrung about eradicating from corporate parlance, in this case policies and similar legally significant documents, so great to hear it is a priority.
@BringBackMo I asked you to send me a PM not because I'm scared of discussing things in public, but rather because the conversation seems to be derailing. I'm fine discussing things in public because I think my opinion is valid and it doesn't require me to denigrate a stranger whom I've never met over some short message board posts. This, apparently, has a lot of appeal to you as it gives you some kind of validation.
I'm not "triggered" by the phrase "intent doesn't matter." I find that it's counterproductive and I've explained why in several posts. It manipulates language and takes a well-known fact inherent in all interpersonal relationships and twists it into the opposite. It denies reality. RW himself admitted that it was an imperfect phrase and he was trying to capture something else. You even contradict yourself here
I'm not "triggered" by the phrase "intent doesn't matter." I find that it's counterproductive and I've explained why in several posts. It manipulates language and takes a well-known fact inherent in all interpersonal relationships and twists it into the opposite. It denies reality. RW himself admitted that it was an imperfect phrase and he was trying to capture something else. You even contradict yourself here
In that statement, Grandma is intending to continue to hurt someone's feelings, so yes, that is an issue! Surely it's different if she apologizes for her mistake, and surely it's different if she doesn't have that knowledge before she says anything out of step. If a person who just immigrated to the US and doesn't speak English well makes a faux pas in our current gender debate because they don't know any better or they can't communicate as well, clearly that is remarkably different from someone who intends to make another person feel worse with a comment. Like, this should be inarguable, yet you keep trying to twist into a pretzel because it's more important to you to make me into something I'm not than to engage with my argument.
The primary goal of "intent doesn't matter" is to center the conversation on the harm of the micro (or not so micro) aggression. Obsessing over the intent makes the conversation about the feelings of the person being called out, typically the person with more societal power and privilege. It's as simple as that. Maybe the phrase could use a follow up when being delivered in practice. "Your intent doesn't matter, your words hurt so-and-so."
This is an effort to shift the conversational Overton window towards recognizing and validating the feelings of the aggrieved over the feelings of perpetrators. It's "believe women". Focusing on the nuance misses the point.
This is your second post in this thread bemoaning the fact that some people are triggered by the word, and this time you even put microaggression in quotes to show how silly you think the whole thing us. And so let me get this straight, if a co-worker said to you "can we try to find a different word to use, that one has racist origins and I don't like it" your response would be "prove to me you really don't like it". What would that entail exactly?
Personally I'm not super worked up over that word for the reasons others have outlined in the thread, but if we come up with a different way to refer to the same concept, I'm not going to lose any sleep over it either.
FWIW, Massachusetts courts decided to jettison use of the phrase earlier this year, in a very high-profile case. The Commonwealth reporter followed suit.
https://www.americanbar.org/groups/litigation/committees/real-estate-condemnation-trust/practice/2021/grandfather-clause-racist-origins/
No one is obsessing over the feelings of the person being called out. I'm stating that the "aggrieved" will be more affected if the person being called out knows whether their statement will hurt. That seems, to me, to be fairly obvious. If my wife makes a joke that I gained 10 pounds, my feelings about it and the outcome will be quite different if I believe she intended to make me feel like shit. That matters. No one is asking for people to not feel hurt or sad. And I think it says something that the only hypotheticals and examples that people can come up with are situations in which people are stubborn and unapologetic (see the grandma above) which, again, speaks to how much intent matters.
We have tried to move to the term ‘legacy’. ‘Bob was legacied in to the union’. Is it perfect? No. But it implies that some sort of past history is what is responsible for the current situation.
shhh... you'll ruin the narrative that it's something people shouldn't know about.
I mean, I guess? The vast majority of the time you can reasonably assume ignorance, and intent is mostly just a stumbling block in getting the person to simply recognize their wrongdoing, not a question of deeper intent to injure.
I played a lot of paper football in English class, but I can say at the public high school I graduated from in 95, and have taught at since 2000 every history teacher teaches about this during reconstruction. We also have always taught about the truth or Columbus, so even though I know it's true it still feels weird to me that there are people not learning this stuff.
Sort of unrelated but we had a long running essay assignment about whether or not we should have a Columbus Day that we gave for 15 years until Maine ditched it for Indigenous People's Day two years ago. A side benefit is f this is I was really sick of reading those essays.
Yet I still feel that we owe it to our racist past to avoid the term whenever possible out of respect
Right... so if that person says, "I'm sorry, I didn't know, I didn't mean that," and then continues to treat you respectfully, they are considerably different than the person who says, "Whatever, I didn't know that and that's not a thing" and continues to not treat you respectfully. You can make assumptions about the latter that you can't make about the former.
Sure, "intent doesn't matter" doesn't have a lot of utility in the face of open hostility. That's typically not a situation where it'd come up. Micro aggressions are almost definitionally rooted in ignorance.
Huh.
This is, as far as I can recall, the first time I'm learning about the history of the term "grandfathered in/grandfather clause."
On one hand it sucks because I use it frequently and will have to switch to "preserved" or "legacied," neither of which have that visceral quality that "grandfathered in" has. . .although "vested" might work in some circumstances. It will require a bit more attention to what I say for awhile, and I'll probably forget at some point, perhaps embarrassing myself.
On the other hand, I'm not routinely treated as a second-class citizen by the entrenched power of our nation. . .nor were my ancestors dragged here in slavery, routinely brutalized, raped, and murdered, their children and children's children subjected to the same in many areas of the country, merely because of the color of their skin.
So forgoing a phrase seems. . .embarrassingly trivial in light of that?
Is that why people are gearing up to be aggrieved douches over this?
This is, as far as I can recall, the first time I'm learning about the history of the term "grandfathered in/grandfather clause."
On one hand it sucks because I use it frequently and will have to switch to "preserved" or "legacied," neither of which have that visceral quality that "grandfathered in" has. . .although "vested" might work in some circumstances. It will require a bit more attention to what I say for awhile, and I'll probably forget at some point, perhaps embarrassing myself.
On the other hand, I'm not routinely treated as a second-class citizen by the entrenched power of our nation. . .nor were my ancestors dragged here in slavery, routinely brutalized, raped, and murdered, their children and children's children subjected to the same in many areas of the country, merely because of the color of their skin.
So forgoing a phrase seems. . .embarrassingly trivial in light of that?
Is that why people are gearing up to be aggrieved douches over this?
I’m not sure what that has to do with anything. Tirico wouldn’t have been clamoring for Gruden’s head on Sunday even if he didn’t have skeletons in his own closet. Likewise, I don’t think he would’ve been singing Gruden’s praises. I think he’s sincerely uncomfortable talking about these issues. His own clumsy past remarks about his own ancestry may offer a clue as to why.
It’s fine to think Tirico shouldn’t be on TV at all. Based on what little I know, I agree. But I don’t think it’s cool to presume that Tirico would hold the views that some people think a Black man “should” hold if he didn’t have those skeletons. (I’m sure that’s not what you meant to do, but I’m not sure how Tirico’s past is relevant otherwise.)
The grandma example makes me think of something else. So my dad had Alzheimer's and the last few years I would take him out to breakfast and to be around people every Sunday (he was an extreme extrovert.) He was a very progressive guy for his time but understandable was not really aware I'd changing standards from the last few years. For the most part it was fine but a couple of times he made a remark that would make me cringe, usually as a joke and it made me a little hesitant to bring him out. This probably belongs in another thread, but I always think about that and I def give some allowance to older people. It's not that they shouldn't be held accountable, it's more like I just grade on a curve.
Can you see why people would find the phrase confusing when it only applies to certain scenarios, yet still manages to flatten open hostility with unintentional situations?
It feels like you're saying "Intent doesn't matter (except in situations where intent is the only thing that matters, which we'll adjudicate later)".
I think I first learned about "grandfathered" on SoSH. There was some discussion about it last year in the "awful things your grandpa said" thread.
http://sonsofsamhorn.net/index.php?threads/off-the-white-river-surprisingly-awful-things-your-granpa-said.30764/post-3933266
http://sonsofsamhorn.net/index.php?threads/off-the-white-river-surprisingly-awful-things-your-granpa-said.30764/post-3933266
All I can tell you is that I’m 51 years old and have lived my whole life in school (as a kid and professional serving at two major universities). And this is the first I can recall hearing about this.
Of course there’s a ton of stuff I’ve heard over the years that I’ve forgotten, and this may be one of them. But it feels new to me.
A similar example (though not directly analogous) that I've been made aware of is the use of the word "Chief," as in "Department Chief, or Chief Counsel." Some find it offensive because it calls back to the improper usage of that word for the heads of American Indian tribes, which was thrust upon the tribes by European settlers, regardless if it even made sense to the tribes at all in terms of tribal governance. The term "chief" has become so inextricably entangled with that dark period of history, and negative stereotypes, that the original meaning of the term (which is French in origin) is irrelevant.
I found out about this when I was told I had to take the "Chief" out of my title when I got promoted because our tribal relations staff person said it was kind of a gray area and best jettisoned.
Tirico issues a statement
“The comments made Sunday on`Football Night in America’ were specific to Jon Gruden’s email related to DeMaurice Smith and addressed my personal experiences with Jon regarding any racist actions or behaviors. As I said on air, his ’comments are wrong’,” Tirico said in a statement released to The Associated Press. “The content and nature of the subsequently released emails is deplorable, disappointing and express sentiments that have no place in our society.”
https://apnews.com/article/nfl-sports-demaurice-smith-mike-tirico-las-vegas-raiders-8ed56f33ee39fb9f58d9522ca6b35ef6
“The comments made Sunday on`Football Night in America’ were specific to Jon Gruden’s email related to DeMaurice Smith and addressed my personal experiences with Jon regarding any racist actions or behaviors. As I said on air, his ’comments are wrong’,” Tirico said in a statement released to The Associated Press. “The content and nature of the subsequently released emails is deplorable, disappointing and express sentiments that have no place in our society.”
https://apnews.com/article/nfl-sports-demaurice-smith-mike-tirico-las-vegas-raiders-8ed56f33ee39fb9f58d9522ca6b35ef6
I mean, Freddy Linn said Tirico doesn’t judge lest he be judged, and followed up saying Tirico has a very complicated history.
You replied with something about some silly little interview Tirico did years ago.
Thought it was reasonable to point out that Freddy Linn may have been referring to Tiricos' very public sexual harrassment/stalking accusations that caused Tirico to be suspended from ESPN and wasn't just talking about some silly interview.
I didn't say anything about "it’s cool to presume that Tirico would hold the views that some people think a Black man “should” hold if he didn’t have those skeletons"
No idea where the hell you got that from.
So, maybe "grandfathered" is not the best example. So maybe I should use the word "jimmies", which when used for chocolate sprinkles has literally no racist connotation. Intent matters in that case, as in the intent of the word. If someone asked me to not use it when ordering ice cream, I would explain how everyone on New England grew up with the word meaning one thing and one thing only: chocolate sprinkles. Sometimes it's on the accuser to take a minute and understand what I am trying to say rather than claim a phony microaggression (not at all discounting that there are real microaggressions).
Did you learn about poll taxes, or even just the general idea that the southern states used laws to disenfranchise Black voters after reconstruction? If so then not learning that one technique isn't really a big deal (you can only teach so much history) but if you never learned about the whole Jim Crow Era completely then I would say that's a huge gap. I'm curious what your experience is.
A similar example, I never learned about the horrors of the Tulsa Massacre until I watched the Watchmen on HBO, and while it blew my mind I had never heard of it it's not like I wasn't aware of other incredibly disturbing similar events. So many shitty things have happened over time that there is no way someone can know them all.
Yes I learned about that. I just don’t recall anything about the term “grandfathered”. Though obviously at my age, it was a long time ago and I easily could have missed it or just forgotten it.
I'm sure I have students in my class every year who don't learn that term because there is a lot of history. I talk about it but I focus more on the big idea, so people pick up those kinds of details or they don't. I think sometimes people use some specific event or term as a "gotcha" like "WHY DIDN'T YOU LEARN THAT IN HISTORY CLASS!" when in my opinion we aren't trying to teach them a million facts, we are trying to teach them thinking skills, the general storyline, and how to view things from the perspectives of other people. Gotta teach the forest not the names of every individual tree.
In the end you want someone who, when they hear the history of a word like this, understands the problems associated with it.
I don't remember it because it was so long ago, but it's entirely possible that I learned of the origins of the phrase but it was sort of like a fun fact about how the word came about with a shoulder shrug and not accompanied by a discussion of whether it should or should not still be used.
I definitely learned about the origin of "grandfathered" in high school in the mid 90s. I also have to recognize that learning it never made me think I had to stop using it, because I didn't consider that the origin of it would cause hurt in people descended from those targeted by the original grandfather clauses. It took me more maturing and the forward movement of society to understand my ignorance on this and similar situations.
I'm fairly confident most people would have gotten canned for the car tires comment 30 years ago, so I'm not sure why those warranted all the wagon-circling from the ESPN commentators. It's telling that they were only willing to cut Gruden loose once the Goodell stuff came out.
They weren't willing to cut him loose until he was already cut loose. No big surprise.
One of the adages referenced earlier apparently originated with old-school Irish political boss Martin Lomasney, who used to warn younger politicians, “Never write if you can speak; never speak if you can nod; never nod if you can wink.”
Sorry man, but I'm fairly confident you're wrong. 30 years ago most of the people in charge were probably saying worse.
Gruden had to go. There's no defense in this (not that anyone here is defending him). And it's unfortunate Mark Davis needed something as strong as this to make it happen.
The good news, for the Raiders franchise, is he wasn't exactly a good coach anymore, anyway, so this forced Davis' hand in a manner that nothing else might have.
Given there are over 600,000 emails, other heads will surely roll over this. Unless the NFL doesn't let it happen, which, unfortunately, is possible.
How is Dan Synder still the owner? Rhetorical question, perhaps.
The good news, for the Raiders franchise, is he wasn't exactly a good coach anymore, anyway, so this forced Davis' hand in a manner that nothing else might have.
Given there are over 600,000 emails, other heads will surely roll over this. Unless the NFL doesn't let it happen, which, unfortunately, is possible.
How is Dan Synder still the owner? Rhetorical question, perhaps.
Last edited:
Well, you're technically correct; but there are over 650,000 emails involved
https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/32389529/nflpa-petition-nfl-release-all-emails-washington-football-team-investigation
Just getting caught up. I had no idea about the origin of grandfathered. I don’t care about the Raiders and wasn’t following along very well but it’s interesting when you see a thread on SOSH get more than a few pages that you are going to learn something. I kind of wish I had known earlier. I have probably used that term a half dozen times in the last year alone. It really is entrenched in lawyer speak. I am at least glad I know now.
On the main story, I’m confused why it took the second batch of emails. The guy denigrated a black executive by making fun of his lips. How much more clear does it get? We need circles and arrows? Maybe a fucking watermelon reference to go with it, for fuck’s sake? Anything short of the n word and we are going to let guys float along with whatever bullshit they can make up to explain it away?
All’s well that ends well is not enough. Days fucking matter. If something is truly ambiguous, sure don’t overreact. But the Randy Moss clip is heartbreaking. He knew what Gruden meant. We all did. Letting it sit and letting the fucker pretend he has some magic rubber speak explanation is rotten and adds injury to injury.
I’d like to think the explanation is that when confronted with rank racism, we sometimes are slow to react because we can’t compute it and it takes a moment to appreciate that the guy really said what we think he said. But that’s not what happened. Randy Moss knew. Millions knew. Instantly.
On the main story, I’m confused why it took the second batch of emails. The guy denigrated a black executive by making fun of his lips. How much more clear does it get? We need circles and arrows? Maybe a fucking watermelon reference to go with it, for fuck’s sake? Anything short of the n word and we are going to let guys float along with whatever bullshit they can make up to explain it away?
All’s well that ends well is not enough. Days fucking matter. If something is truly ambiguous, sure don’t overreact. But the Randy Moss clip is heartbreaking. He knew what Gruden meant. We all did. Letting it sit and letting the fucker pretend he has some magic rubber speak explanation is rotten and adds injury to injury.
I’d like to think the explanation is that when confronted with rank racism, we sometimes are slow to react because we can’t compute it and it takes a moment to appreciate that the guy really said what we think he said. But that’s not what happened. Randy Moss knew. Millions knew. Instantly.
It is odd that we’re having these digressions about borderline use cases like “grandfathering” when the stuff Gruden wrote was racist as can be. This isn’t even a context of its time issue, shit like that was racist in 1950. And it was used with racist intent, to address the other digression.
The only surprise here is that Gruden anticipated that these would be private and he was absolutely wrong to have that expectation. I mean, it doesn’t even matter because if you say that kind of stupid shit you should be prepared to face consequences.
The only surprise here is that Gruden anticipated that these would be private and he was absolutely wrong to have that expectation. I mean, it doesn’t even matter because if you say that kind of stupid shit you should be prepared to face consequences.
Last edited:
I'm willing to have that primary conversation then.
Yes, Gruden is a racist shitstain.
No, it's not a borderline case.
Yes, he should have been, and was essentially, fired from his position of cultural authority.
Well, that's done.
Possible secondary topics include:
-toxic masculinity in sports,
-what really might be a hypothetical borderline case,
what sort of societal protocol/ritual, if any, we could have (beyond acknowledge and apologize) for someone, who told racist jokes 25 years ago, but has since grown as a person, and
-it's Tampa, so who's really surprised here?