Ed Do you like your cheese?

I just looked on the Births Marriages and Deaths Index for the twenty years up to 1993 (which is currently the end of the free index) - it's a very uncommon name in the UK. Literally, only two births in the whole of 1983 with that surname and not many more in other years.

I don't think that except for a tiny minority of people who might know someone with that surname you are going to be able to show that the word is anything other than a racist slur in the UK - which is what I and angrysoba are saying.
 
Agatha said:
I just looked on the Births Marriages and Deaths Index for the twenty years up to 1993 (which is currently the end of the free index) - it's a very uncommon name in the UK. Literally, only two births in the whole of 1983 with that surname and not many more in other years.

I don't think that except for a tiny minority of people who might know someone with that surname you are going to be able to show that the word is anything other than a racist slur in the UK - which is what I and angrysoba are saying.
Click to expand...

I checked the United States census database from the 2010 census. There are 162,253 different surnames in the United States that are shared by at least 100 people.

"Coon" is ranked number 2117th, shared by 17097 Americans.

There are somewhat more than 29,000,000 people who have a name shared by fewer than 100 other Americans.
 
Last edited:
I’ve seen a few posts alluding to “coon” being used as racial abuse in Australia. I can’t recall personally hearing anyone using the word in that way. Sure, “black”, followed by “bastard” or something worse, but I think racial slurs directed at indigenous people is now rare in most parts of the country. Perhaps more common in the outback.

What I do know is that “wog” used to be an utterly offensive word in Australia firstly directed at Greeks and Italians and then other Eastern Europeans. Until the word was appropriated by those it was directed at, for example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wogs_Out_of_Work.

Now people are proud to admit they are wogs. My daughter’s mother-in-law has Italian heritage and I have had occasion to say to her “sometimes the wog is strong in you”, which generates laughs and not hostility.

Sometimes words can be torn away from their historical context and neutralised. It’s a pity that doesn’t happen more often.
 
lionking said:
I’ve seen a few posts alluding to “coon” being used as racial abuse in Australia. I can’t recall personally hearing anyone using the word in that way. Sure, “black”, followed by “bastard” or something worse, but I think racial slurs directed at indigenous people is now rare in most parts of the country. Perhaps more common in the outback.

What I do know is that “wog” used to be an utterly offensive word in Australia firstly directed at Greeks and Italians and then other Eastern Europeans. Until the word was appropriated by those it was directed at, for example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wogs_Out_of_Work.

Now people are proud to admit they are wogs. My daughter’s mother-in-law has Italian heritage and I have had occasion to say to her “sometimes the wog is strong in you”, which generates laughs and not hostility.

Sometimes words can be torn away from their historical context and neutralised. It’s a pity that doesn’t happen more often.
Click to expand...

I used it as a kid because it was widely used in the NT along with a few others. Do you hear people use any openly racist names these days? Seems racists are much more careful.
 
Sideroxylon said:
I used it as a kid because it was widely used in the NT along with a few others. Do you hear people use any openly racist names these days? Seems racists are much more careful.
Click to expand...

The last time I heard racial sledging in public was at an AFL match over 10 years ago.

As I was brought up in Chippendale, Sydney, bordering on Redfern with its large indigenous population, we were very careful about how we referred to aborigines. “Black fella” was generally used and wasn’t held to be offensive at all. I did use “wog” a lot though.
 
Belz... said:
Rather even than a person's name? Let's concede that, in the UK at least, they wouldn't recognise Rocket Raccoon... it's still a surname. Why is the racist slur more salient?
Click to expand...

You are going round in circles. You ruled out the person's name, earlier. Why reintroduce it again?

Besides, I already told you that the word is most likely to be associated with a racial slur. That's just how it is. Believe me or don't believe me. At this point, it is beyond tedious explaining this to you.

Rocket Raccoon? Huh? Is this person usually referred to as Rocket Raccoon or Rocket Coon? Because if it is the former it is irrelevant. I already told you (several bloody times so you shouldn't keep pretending to be unaware of this), the word for "raccoon" in the UK is "raccoon". It is not "coon".


Belz... said:
It's a matter of context as well. This is a commercial brand name, not a joke in a comedy movie.
Click to expand...

Irrelevant. I pointed out that a childish interpretation of a word could be the correct one. You earlier dismissed it. The example used in the movie is a counter-example. Will you at least concede that?
 
angrysoba said:
Yep!

I have to disagree, slightly, with your assertion about how little-known the animal is. I remember a TV show called The Raccoons (turns out it is Canadian) but it really, really is only known as a raccoon.

An advertising campaign to sell Coon Cheese in the UK would be dead before it got started simply because of the unpleasant associations.

People can mock and say it is "silly" to associate words with their most salient meaning, but that really is boldly venturing into Straw Vulcan Territory.
Click to expand...

Agreed, another Brit, I know what a raccoon is but if I hear the shortened version outside a very clear context my first thought would be the racial slur, quite simply the chances that anyone would be speaking about raccoons and not use the full word is vanishingly small.

Agatha, the film you're thinking of is "The Great Outdoors" which I remember as being absolutely hilarious, especially the raccoons. I also recall a book we covered at school in the eighties called "Pardon me, you're stepping on my eyeball" in which one character has a pet raccoon which is burned to death in a passage that I wish I hadn't just remembered...
 
TomB said:
Seems you need to talk to the people at Swiss Miss about their packaging.
https://www.swissmiss.com/simply-cocoa
Click to expand...

That's not real chocolate, though, so it doesn't count. :boxedin:

It IS interesting that on the Coon brand it says natural cheese slices in tiny little letters which I think could be confusing for the buyer. Here in America, the buyer would want to know whether or not the product is real cheese and not some processed cheese product like Velveeta™ and it must be labeled as such.
 
This conversation makes me think of this....

Around here we have: Dick Van Dyke Appliance World Named after a person (but not the one you think).

Associating a racist meaning with the brand "Coon Cheese" seems to be a misinterpretation. However, the ease of the misinterpretation, makes it reasonable that the company consider changing it.

I had a friend in high school named Richard Coon. He went by Rick and his middle initial was A.
 
Last edited:
Elagabalus said:
That's not real chocolate, though, so it doesn't count. :boxedin:

It IS interesting that on the Coon brand it says natural cheese slices in tiny little letters which I think could be confusing for the buyer. Here in America, the buyer would want to know whether or not the product is real cheese and not some processed cheese product like Velveeta™ and it must be labeled as such.
Click to expand...

I wonder if we consume as much as you do. Bet we are very strict on what gets called cheese.
 
angrysoba said:
You are going round in circles. You ruled out the person's name, earlier. Why reintroduce it again?
Click to expand...

In good part because nobody seems to understand the point of my hypothetical. And I didn't rule it out; I simply switched the root of the brand name in the hypothetical. I didn't suggest that no one with that surname existed, did I?

Besides, I already told you that the word is most likely to be associated with a racial slur.
Click to expand...

You keep saying that but that's your opinion. I'd like something a little more solid.

Rocket Raccoon? Huh? Is this person usually referred to as Rocket Raccoon or Rocket Coon? Because if it is the former it is irrelevant. I already told you (several bloody times so you shouldn't keep pretending to be unaware of this), the word for "raccoon" in the UK is "raccoon". It is not "coon".
Click to expand...

Ok let me help you out: RacCOON.

I pointed out that a childish interpretation of a word could be the correct one. You earlier dismissed it.
Click to expand...

I dismissed it because it's irrelevant. The fact of the matter is that we generally prefer people acting rationally, and that the rational answer is usually better than the idiotic one. That you can find examples where the reverse is true does not change that. Exceptions do not invalidate a rule.
 
Belz... said:
You keep saying that but that's your opinion. I'd like something a little more solid.
Click to expand...


The Cambridge Dictionary has literally one definition

It is, wait for it...

a very offensive word for a black person
Click to expand...

That's the first thing people think of in the UK.

Collins has two:

Word forms: plural coons
1. COUNTABLE NOUN
A coon is a raccoon.
[US, informal]
2. COUNTABLE NOUN
Coon is an extremely offensive word for a Black person.
[informal, very offensive]
Click to expand...

So, one is American and the other is understood in the UK.

Oxford has one.

​a very offensive word for a black person
Click to expand...



Belz... said:
Ok let me help you out: RacCOON.
Click to expand...

Now you need only demonstrate that that's what British people think of when they hear the word "coon".


I too would like something a little more solid


Belz... said:
I dismissed it because it's irrelevant. The fact of the matter is that we generally prefer people acting rationally, and that the rational answer is usually better than the idiotic one. That you can find examples where the reverse is true does not change that. Exceptions do not invalidate a rule.
Click to expand...

Then you're wrong. In comedy and marketing, such interpretations are often deliberately implied. I gave you evidence. Do you have evidence for your claim?
 
Belz... said:
In good part because nobody seems to understand the point of my hypothetical. And I didn't rule it out; I simply switched the root of the brand name in the hypothetical. I didn't suggest that no one with that surname existed, did I?



You keep saying that but that's your opinion. I'd like something a little more solid.



Ok let me help you out: RacCOON.



I dismissed it because it's irrelevant. The fact of the matter is that we generally prefer people acting rationally, and that the rational answer is usually better than the idiotic one. That you can find examples where the reverse is true does not change that. Exceptions do not invalidate a rule.
Click to expand...

We get that the word raccoon contains those four letters. We also get that in the USA, raccoons are commonly/sometimes known as that word. What you aren't, apparently, getting is that raccoons are never known as that word in the UK. In the UK, that word is a racial slur and nothing else (other than an exceptionally rare surname and part of the name of a rare foreign breed of cat, where the etymology from raccoon isn't widely known even to people who have heard of the cat breed).

Pointing out that the word raccoon contains those four letters doesn't change the way we use the word in the UK. We don't call giraffes "raffes" or lemurs "murs", and we don't call raccoons that word, because it is almost entirely a racial slur here.
 
So basically anything or one with the name Coon or Karen should change its/their names.
 
cullennz said:
So basically anything or one with the name Coon or Karen should change its/their names.
Click to expand...
Should? No, of course not. It's entirely their choice. I suspect the Karen meme will fade away in the fullness of time anyway.

But if they want to use their name as a brand name, especially if they have the first name you mention and they want to sell into a market where it's a racial slur, they'd be damaging their potential sales as well as the public perception of the parent company.

Surnames are treated differently from brand names, even if the brand name was originally a surname. A brand name is a choice and something that a company wants to be seen as a positive.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom