The point of the article seems to be that you can use the word Mongal in relation to Mongolia, and it's not problematic in this usage.

I want people to know you can use Mongol in the same way as you would refer to a Scot, Turk or Pole. It's fine. We can unlearn negative connotations because we learnt them. You can call me Mongol because I am one.

This is kinda interesting for just how these things play out.

Yossarian wrote:

RedDave2 wrote:

Yossarian wrote:

Plus there does seem to be a suggestion here that nobody’s offended. Has anyone sought out a Mongolian perspective on this?

Find me a Mongolian who is offended and that might sway me alright. But I kinda feel this falls into assumed offence.

Didn’t take long, TBH. https://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-ouch-30129358

That may not be what you intended but it was interesting so cheers. Also had me thinking of any Mongolians I worked with and I did through the Mongolion BBQ in Dublin (not owned by Mongolians I should add, its run by a very nice scotsman) but I dont think I word have used the word or Mong or Mongo to describe him - always thought he was Mongolion. Anyway, thats beside the point.

Diluted Dante wrote:

Ahaha, he literally links to the same BBC article that you did, entirely undoing his argument that its offensive.

I think that is his argument though isnt it - that a word to describe people as an ethnic group or nationality has been warped by western launguage to mean something else (and in a derogatory way too) I might be mis-reading that.

afgavinstan wrote:

But I'm a white guy from central Scotland so my opinion should rightly be ignored.

Well, Koji is american so should we ignore him as well? I've never fully liked this approach. I fully get that your opinion is skewed but it has its place in the debate.

Tempy wrote:

I agree with Nick really, I don't think it's difficult to understand that "horde" to identify a group has negative connotations, even in RedDave's example of a "horde of shoppers" the image it is meant to conjure isn't of groups of people thoughtfully browsing shops, but of an invasive force, this is just simple language 101 stuff. The way you use words has meaning. I also fully agree that this is a total storm in a teacup thing, but people finding stuff offensive isn't PC gone made or anything, it's just part of an ongoing conversation to understand how the shape of the world is so fixed in a white colonial viewpoint that often people don't consider the potential impact of the things that they're doing or saying. Art is still getting made, people are still free to cause offence, there's just a potential for some critical thinking to be brought up off the back of it, because Education is invested in teaching post-colonial theory as a way of unshackling us from a century of the white canon in literature and art.

Being offended by something doesnt mean its wrong though. Intent is a big part of it and I dont know if use of the phrase Mongol Horde as a band name is really all that offensive. And I mean either word. If he changes it to the Golden Horde is that ok? Because its the same thing. I've been offended by several things but it would be wrong of me to demand that they get taken out of public life.

OTOH, there are plenty of examples of cultural appropriation which are being dealt with in a similar way, for example:

https://www.cbssports.com/mlb/news/cleveland-indians-fully-phase-out-chief-wahoo-logo-unveil-new-uniforms-for-2019/

I support that, for instance.

Sure, there’s certainly got to be a line here, but where that line is constantly shifts and is worthy of re-examination from time to time.

Edit: Dave.

nick_md wrote:

Once again, my point was not about whether this band name is offensive, really, but more that saying 'wot, wot, should we stop saying 'group' or 'team' now?!' is being completely oblivious to how language works.

I don't think anyone is debating that horse has negative terms. The issue was really with yossi saying that a group term can dehumanizing people by taking away their individuality.

Anyway, it has since been revealed that the issue is with mongol and not horde.

Whilst i'm in the 'storm in a teacup' camp, having caught up with the thread, here's my two cents.
i don't think the name 'The Mongol Horde' is racist, as it's referring to an historical group/army, rather than being negative about a race. It would however be different if they were called 'a horde of Mongols'.

A slightly different angle, is whether it's an appropriate name to use generally - and I'm just asking the question rather than making a statement...so much time has passed, and cos it didn't really impact Western Europe, but Genghis Khan and his army are seen in a rather 'cool' light, they were a 'right bunch of lads romping around taking over asia'. But I think it's fair to say that they were a rather murderous bunch. Would it be acceptable to have bands named after Khmer Rouge or Far Reich? Maybe it's the 'celebration' of Mongol Horde that's offensive to people in some parts of the world, rather than the words themselves?
then again, I wouldn't bat an eyelid at a band called 'the vikings' and obviously they did some romping around here back in the day.

Yeah I'll apologise for going off on one there although I do stand by my point re. dictionary definitions not being the be all and end all, and how it's important to think how things may be for others.

Tell ya what there's nothing like a proper discussion crumbling into semantics to brighten ya day

Moot_Geeza wrote:

What about The Viking Mob?

That's just offensive to Vikings.

I’ve never even heard of them.

Edit: the Viking mob.

There's an American band called Black 47, which refers to the worst year of the Irish famine, when literally hundreds of thousands of people died of starvation. Is it insensitive? Offensive? Does it make a difference that they're Irish Americans? I dunno. There's no directly insulting word in there. Would it be offensive to have a band called Hillsborough?

I may or may not have made that up.

Diluted Dante wrote:

Whilst I agree that the comparison to team ect was useless, I do think that thinking about words in context is important. Mongol Horde in this context refers to a specific group of people from a specific time in history. They are where the word horde comes from.  Placing those two words together it's absolutely clear that it's neither referencing people with disabilities, or negatively painting the people of Mongolia.

Just to be clear, the comparison to team etc. was only in reference to this :

Yossarian wrote:

Collective nouns depersonalise the individuals who make up the group.

But would completely agree otherwise.

Yossarian wrote:

OTOH, there are plenty of examples of cultural appropriation which are being dealt with in a similar way, for example: https://www.cbssports.com/mlb/news/cleveland-indians-fully-phase-out-chief-wahoo-logo-unveil-new-uniforms-for-2019/ I support that, for instance. Sure, there’s certainly got to be a line here, but where that line is constantly shifts and is worthy of re-examination from time to time. Edit: Dave.

I'm not knocking you or the above. But what if I as an Irish man found Notre Dame and their logo of the fighting Irish both Stereotypical in depiction of the Irish and cultural appropriation because they are an American institute?

That fucking Lucky Charms racist cereal.

I see we're just into the realm of saying stuff, ah well. I had a go.

Tempy wrote:

There was no demand though, people asked. That's not a demand. Turner's a shithead anyway so he didn't bother.  And it's not simply about offence, like i've said, it's about the connotations of the way the world is built which is a huge and difficult to navigate set of threads that everyone seems to just want to boil down to "WELL IN MY DAY YOU COULD SAY WHATEVER" like, fuck sake, why does every conversation come back to the Ricky Gervais style "ooh, are you offended?" bullshit? It's possible to be critical of stuff, ask for reflection/empathy/reflection without meaning that no one can ever be offended or that criticism = censorship. He's still touring with the band name.

Just on the above, Koji isnt just critical of the bands name, he is asking for it to be changed. I'd even go so far as to say he has demanded given the tone but that may have been in response to something Turner typed. Thats not the same as being critical.

edit: added the word 'just 'for clarification