# Redskins: an improper name... now what?



## Vigilance (Aug 12, 2006)

Here's the story:

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/football/nfl/redskins/2006-08-11-redskins-indians_x.htm?csp=25

So basically, I agree with what they're saying. What then? Is agreement with their position a reason to abandon/force the abandoning of the name? It really is offensive, I think the equivalent words for other groups would probably get me banned... 

And for the record, my grandmother was Seminole, so I do have a somewhat personal opinion about the word itself. But I'm still not sure what it being offensive means... 

Edit: To make clear what the point of this thread is, it isn't to discuss the politcs behind the word, the case or anything else.

My main question is, let's assume the plaintiffs are right about everything- it's offensive, no trademark should be allowed. So what then? I guess if there's no trademark you'd have to call the team something else since you couldnt really make money off it... 

Chuck


----------



## trancejeremy (Aug 12, 2006)

Heh, I wouldn't be surprised to see them sell off a new name. 

The Washington UPS Delivery Guys

Maybe not like that blatant, but seriously, Dodge is a huge advertiser during Rams games, simply because of the name (Ram)


----------



## Vigilance (Aug 12, 2006)

Hmm. Well certainly if they change it would probably be something with a huge tie-in. I must say in reading about this case I was unaware that a word deemed racially perforative cannot be used as a business trademark.

Had no idea such a law was on the books.


----------



## AdmundfortGeographer (Aug 12, 2006)

Thing is, I don't think that with the climate about Native American team names that the Washington D.C. football club could change its name to a pro-Native American name now (fully agree that the existing name is offensive. Try walking onto the Pine Ridge Reservation wearing a Redskins jersey...).  It won't be long before the Atlanta Braves or Cleveland Indians are similarly protested if this tactic gets the Redskins to pick an alternate name.


----------



## Templetroll (Aug 12, 2006)

So if they want to keep the historical connection to an Indian name of some sort, is there something that is not offensive they can use?  If not, then they should come up with a new name, trademark etc quickly.

The thing I thought Indians found offensive about the Braves was the mascot and that hand-chopping gesture.  Not sure about the Indians.  Are the Seminoles colege team still under fire for their name?


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Aug 12, 2006)

The Redskins, Chiefs and Braves have all come under fire at various times for their names, all of which have negative connotations to Native Americans.  FYI, "Chief," while a term of status _within_ the community, has been used _outside_ the community in much the same way as "boy" is for blacks- a term of belittlement.

The Indians get in trouble for their iconography, chants & hand chop stuff.

However, the Seminoles, from what I understand, have not had much of a problem with protests.  Apparently, the tribe itself doesn't find the use of their name as a team name as offensive.

Similarly, I don't think the Chicago Blackhawks have had many problems with it either.

I'm pretty sure that if they adopted a name a tribe used for themselves- possibly with a marketing agreement- there would be no problem at all.

Check here: http://www.fortunecity.com/victorian/ferndale/61/tribes.htm

 and you'll see there are tribal names all over our culture, especially in commercial products like vehicles.


----------



## Mimic (Aug 12, 2006)

Does this mean that the White Sox are going to have to change thier name as well?


----------



## Vigilance (Aug 13, 2006)

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> However, the Seminoles, from what I understand, have not had much of a problem with protests.  Apparently, the tribe itself doesn't find the use of their name as a team name as offensive.




Right on the mark. Saying "Seminole" is better than "Indian" every time. We aren't all one thing and people get bonus points if they grok that.


----------



## Chimera (Aug 13, 2006)

Some random non-serious ideas;

1.  Change the name to "The Redheads".

2.  Move them south and change the name to "The Rednecks", complete with trailer trash mascot.

3.  "The Washington Lobbyists".


----------



## Ranger REG (Aug 13, 2006)

1. Washington Filibusters
2. Washington Statesmen (yeah, I'm being way too kind this election year)
3. Washington Sons of Morningstar (Custer's given name by Native Americans)


----------



## johnsemlak (Aug 13, 2006)

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> However, the Seminoles, from what I understand, have not had much of a problem with protests.  Apparently, the tribe itself doesn't find the use of their name as a team name as offensive.




The university has an arrangement with the actual Seminole tribe, and they approve the use of the name and images.


----------



## johnsemlak (Aug 13, 2006)

There are and have been several washington-based professional teams with names other than 'Redskins'.  The Senators, Capitols, the Eagles, the Potomics, the Grays, the Pilots (the latter three being old Negro League baseball teams), the Wave, the Slayers (a Rugby League team), the Statesmen, the Olympics, etc.


----------



## Vigilance (Aug 13, 2006)

Mimic said:
			
		

> Does this mean that the White Sox are going to have to change thier name as well?




To the best of my knowledge White Sox is not a derogatory term to any group of people. I looked around for any racist connotations to the phrase White Sox and couldn't find any.

The issue, as explained in the article, is that US law prohibits business trademarks of racist names. 

If you ask members of most tribes about the word redskin, the overwhelming reaction is that it's a racist term. 

It's all in the specific term. There's no slippery slope here I'm aware of. It's the difference between calling a team the "Black Sox", which I don't thing anyone would mind and calling one the "Black Faces" with a mascot of a white man in blackface, which everyone would recognize as in poor taste. 

Until a few years ago (I believe they halted the practice), the Redskins used to have someone dressed as a tribesman come out shirtless, with a spear, riding a horse down the sidelines before the games. They also used to dress their cheerleaders like squaws. 

So the word itself, and the history of the team are the issues here. 

I do have some sympathy with the current ownership though, who have removed just about all of that kind of nonsense from the team, really only retaining the chief's head symbol and not even using that very often (most of the time the team uses a stlized "R" with feathers now where the chief's head used to go).

Chuck


----------



## AdmundfortGeographer (Aug 13, 2006)

johnsemlak said:
			
		

> The university has an arrangement with the actual Seminole tribe, and they approve the use of the name and images.



Thing is about he "agreements" and such, the NCAA doesn't much care to apply a standard uniformly. Whether Florida State has an agreement or not with the tribe doesn't seem to matter a whit.  The NCAA has given FSU approval to keep using the name and mascot, and that is why FSU can keep using it.  The NCAA has been trying to purge Indian names from use and doesn't seem to be applying the standards uniformly.

Here is the University of North Dakota's President's tersely worded response to the NCAA back in June about the matter.  UND's mascot is the Fighting Sioux and the NCAA has told them they must stop using it even though the nearest Sioux tribe gave them written permission, no tribe in the state is offended at the use, and a hundred times more Indian students attend UND vs. FSU.

UND is now suing the NCAA over the issue.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Aug 13, 2006)

> My main question is, let's assume the plaintiffs are right about everything- it's offensive, no trademark should be allowed. So what then? I guess if there's no trademark you'd have to call the team something else since you couldnt really make money off it...




Almost, but not quite.

They can continue operating the team profitably under that name without the protection of trademark, but there will be consequences:

1) Someone else could name a professional football team "The Redskins."  OK- given the context of the discussion, that's not too likely.

2) They couldn't defend their team's likenesses in court if someone decided to produce counterfeit merchandise.  This is the real problem.  Merchandising is where a lot of the owners make real money.  A lot of pro sports merchandise has trademarks other than that of the team itself, though.  In this case, it would be things like the NFC logo, the NFL logo, and some others.  THOSE entities could defend their rights, if they so chose...but not the team.

3) Continued loss of goodwill devalues the intrinsic value in the team should it ever come up for resale.  This matters as well- the Redskins and their corporate holdings are among the biggest pile 'o loot in pro sports.


----------



## Vigilance (Aug 13, 2006)

Yeah, I think the UND case is a different animal altogether.

In fact use of actual tribal names is usually ok with me, not that I speak for everyone or anything. It really depends a lot on how it's handled- as the UND letter notes, things are different when a white guy painted red rides out with a flaming spear.

That sort of "mascot" shouldn't be tolerated.


----------



## Mimic (Aug 13, 2006)

Vigilance said:
			
		

> So the word itself, and the history of the team are the issues here.




Yes, obviously what I said was very tongue in cheek but you do touch on the point I am trying to make. Its just a word, the owners aren't trying to make it racist, as you said they have distanced themselves in almost every way besides the name and logo. 

Personally I don't see the big deal of having someone dress up as tribesman or having the cheerleaders dress up as squaws, unless it was to deliberately try and humilite Indians on a whole. Which would be pretty much would be stupid since they are trying to show how great the team is. Does it make me a racist if I dress up as an Indian for Halloween?



> It's all in the specific term. There's no slippery slope here I'm aware of. It's the difference between calling a team the "Black Sox", which I don't thing anyone would mind and calling one the "Black Faces" with a mascot of a white man in blackface, which everyone would recognize as in poor taste.




I can't say for certain but I am pretty sure that someone would get offended if there was a team called the "Black Sox". And although the name the Red Skins may be in poor taste does that make it racist? What if the current owner was a Native American? 

They in no way shape or form are they trying to be racist so even though some may not like it shouldn't they have to tolerate it? Isn't that what tolerate means?


----------



## Vigilance (Aug 13, 2006)

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> Almost, but not quite.
> 
> They can continue operating the team profitably under that name without the protection of trademark, but there will be consequences:
> 
> ...




Right, based on #2, which would allow anyone to make knock-off Jerseys, hats, decals etc I am considering revocation of trademark as something that would force them to change the nickname themselves.

I don't see them continuing with a nickname they couldn't protect and market exclusively and I'm sure the plaintiffs think this as well.


----------



## Vigilance (Aug 13, 2006)

Mimic said:
			
		

> Personally I don't see the big deal of having someone dress up as tribesman or having the cheerleaders dress up as squaws, unless it was to deliberately try and humilite Indians on a whole. Which would be pretty much would be stupid since they are trying to show how great the team is. Does it make me a racist if I dress up as an Indian for Halloween?




So, performing in blackface is ok? Having white men dress up like Chinese with big fake buck teeth and speaking in an exaggerated way "ahhhh yes numba one son"... is ok?

Dressing up like a member of a racial group and then acting in racially stereotypical ways is racism.


----------



## AdmundfortGeographer (Aug 13, 2006)

Mimic said:
			
		

> Personally I don't see the big deal of having someone dress up as tribesman or having the cheerleaders dress up as *squaws*, unless it was to deliberately try and humilite Indians on a whole.



Well, the word "squaw" itself has a highly controversial history.  Many places around the country with "squaw" in the name have been renamed because of Indian activists pointing out the word's origin and history.


----------



## Ranger REG (Aug 13, 2006)

johnsemlak said:
			
		

> The university has an arrangement with the actual Seminole tribe, and they approve the use of the name and images.



With or without royalty payment?


----------



## Ranger REG (Aug 13, 2006)

Eric Anondson said:
			
		

> Thing is about he "agreements" and such, the NCAA doesn't much care to apply a standard uniformly. Whether Florida State has an agreement or not with the tribe doesn't seem to matter a whit.  The NCAA has given FSU approval to keep using the name and mascot, and that is why FSU can keep using it.  The NCAA has been trying to purge Indian names from use and doesn't seem to be applying the standards uniformly.
> 
> Here is the University of North Dakota's President's tersely worded response to the NCAA back in June about the matter.  UND's mascot is the Fighting Sioux and the NCAA has told them they must stop using it even though the nearest Sioux tribe gave them written permission, no tribe in the state is offended at the use, and a hundred times more Indian students attend UND vs. FSU.
> 
> UND is now suing the NCAA over the issue.



So, it this just a case of unnecessary proactive measure by the NCAA to cover their asses from future discrimination lawsuits, or are there pressure from some lesser known Native American activist group that really don't care if individual organization or institution already have permission from neighboring tribe to use their name and image?


----------



## Vigilance (Aug 13, 2006)

There's a lot of pressure (within and without) on the NCAA to make sure team mascots aren't offensive, such as changing the St John's Red Men to the St John's Red Storm. 

It was my impression that the NCAA was pressuring schools across the board to phase out these mascots. If it isn't across the board, then they need to figure out what their policy is and implement it fairly. 

As I said before, the native peoples of America are not all one thing, so if the Sioux are ok with a mascot/team called the Fighting Sioux, then I don't think the Seminoles (for example) have much to say about it.

The experiences of the different tribes with regard to racism and government treatment run the gamut so I think it's the sort of thing that needs to be handled individually.

Chuck


----------



## griff_goodbeard (Aug 13, 2006)

Vigilance said:
			
		

> Until a few years ago (I believe they halted the practice), the Redskins used to have someone dressed as a tribesman come out shirtless, with a spear, riding a horse down the sidelines before the games. They also used to dress their cheerleaders like squaws.




I don't ever remember the 'skins doing this, but I know that FSU does (at least up until last football season).


----------



## Mimic (Aug 13, 2006)

Vigilance said:
			
		

> So, performing in blackface is ok? Having white men dress up like Chinese with big fake buck teeth and speaking in an exaggerated way "ahhhh yes numba one son"... is ok?
> 
> Dressing up like a member of a racial group and then acting in racially stereotypical ways is racism.




If something is done without the intent to humiliate, belittle, look down upon, etc. any racial group I don't see how it would be considered racist. Can it be considered bad taste? Yes of course. Would I be considered a racist if I dress up as an Indian for Halloween? Would I be a sexist if I dressed up as a woman? What about everyone who gets dressed up for a Renaissance fair? After all aren't they acting in a racially stereotypical way?

What if I was eating a fried chicken and a black friend of mine came up could I offer him some without being racist? Because we all know that fried chicken and black people is a racist image. Does it mean that no person/business should give/sell fried chicken to black people? What does KFC do when a black person walks into their store. Do they refuse service? They don't want to be racist right?

Of course they serve him, its the intent behind the action that makes it racist.




			
				Eric Anondson said:
			
		

> Well, the word "squaw" itself has a highly controversial history.  Many places around the country with "squaw" in the name have been renamed because of Indian activists pointing out the word's origin and history.




Case in point, how many people know what it actually means? I  honestly thought it ment woman. Does it make me a racist because I used the word? Will I continue to use the word now that I know what it means? No I wouldn't (not like I use it alot now.)


----------



## HeavenShallBurn (Aug 13, 2006)

In all truth I find the entire issue to be deranged.  From what I have heard it's quite obvious that use of these names has offended people.  But the desire to effectively censor out words simply because they offend is to me personally a disgusting thing.  This is at its core one group of people telling another group that because they are offended that group can't use the term that offends them.  But where did they ever get the idea they have the right not to be offended, in order to FEEL BETTER they would prevent others from using a word they don't like.  If they're offended that's fine they can be that way, but how does it give them the ability to tell others what not to do when the actions of the other party are not demonstratably harmful to anyone?  I guess what I'm trying to get at is simply by living every human on this planet will be offended by someone and offend others no matter what they do.  So if we're going to be logical the only end result of this can be a form of social paralysis where no one can do anything for fear that someone else might be gasp, OFFENDED!!!  Ultimately feelings are without value, until it's caused harm (real physical or economic damage) then it's nobodies business to tell anyone else NOT to say or do anything.  Because anything one party can use against another can be used against themselves just as easily.


----------



## RedWick (Aug 13, 2006)

If another person is offended by the sterotype you're portraying, it's racist (or sexist or classist or whateverist).  Intent doesn't enter into it.


----------



## Ranger REG (Aug 13, 2006)

Vigilance said:
			
		

> As I said before, the native peoples of America are not all one thing, so if the Sioux are ok with a mascot/team called the Fighting Sioux, then I don't think the Seminoles (for example) have much to say about it.



What if, for example, the Seminole don't want to back off, thinking they must educate the Sioux about their decision being wrong? One can only hope it doesn't turn into a tribal war.


----------



## Ranger REG (Aug 13, 2006)

Mimic said:
			
		

> What if I was eating a fried chicken and a black friend of mine came up could I offer him some without being racist? Because we all know that fried chicken and black people is a racist image. Does it mean that no person/business should give/sell fried chicken to black people? What does KFC do when a black person walks into their store. Do they refuse service? They don't want to be racist right?
> 
> Of course they serve him, its the intent behind the action that makes it racist.



Funny you bring that up. I recalled a brouhaha on the PGA when one golfer wanted to invite Tiger Wood to dinner with fried chicken and collard green. The media caught it and a firestorm of racism being called across the country.

So, who determines if the intent is indeed racism or not? The offendee (e.g., Tiger Wood)? What if he is naive or perceived to be naive by external sources (e.g., Al Sharpton)?


----------



## frankthedm (Aug 13, 2006)

RedWick said:
			
		

> If another person is offended by the sterotype you're portraying, it's racist (or sexist or classist or whateverist).  Intent doesn't enter into it.



That is your opinion. People can claim something is offensive until they are blue in the face. A group of reasonable and uninvolved people have to agree [usually 12 in court cases, though those folks are not always reasonable] that the object, words or icon in question is offensive.

I'll agree is "Redskin" is quite hard to justify not being offensive.

A tribe or rank name is well within sports team naming conventions that someone has to be trying to be offended to be bothered by. A caricature of Chief made a buffoon is a whole nother ballgame, as it were.


----------



## KenM (Aug 13, 2006)

How about a NFL team called "The Gamers". I bet that would help change streotypes.


----------



## Ranger REG (Aug 13, 2006)

KenM said:
			
		

> How about a NFL team called "The Gamers". I bet that would help change streotypes.



With *frankthedm* avatar as the team logo. Hmm. Where do I vote?


----------



## KenM (Aug 13, 2006)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> With *frankthedm* avatar as the team logo. Hmm. Where do I vote?





 I'd watch that team.


----------



## AdmundfortGeographer (Aug 13, 2006)

Mimic said:
			
		

> Case in point, how many people know what it actually means? I  honestly thought it ment woman. Does it make me a racist because I used the word? Will I continue to use the word now that I know what it means? No I wouldn't (not like I use it alot now.)



It actually does mean "woman", there was an activist who appeared on Oprah in 1992 who started the meme that squaw had a horrible meaning.  Linguists have been fighting it ever since, but when Oprah puts on someone with an agenda... that agenda quickly becomes the default. A lot of "journalists" haven't bothered to investigate the matter  to learn how the controversy started, and whether it was a fact, they just keep on repeating the error.

But that's just it.  People are told something is offensive to someone in another culture, or are told they should be offended, and most people just go along and agree.  The NCAA was told by a few activists that all use of Indian names is "hostile and abusive" to the all Indian cultures, and the NCAA administrators feel obliged to go right along.


----------



## Vigilance (Aug 13, 2006)

Mimic said:
			
		

> If something is done without the intent to humiliate, belittle, look down upon, etc. any racial group I don't see how it would be considered racist. Can it be considered bad taste? Yes of course. Would I be considered a racist if I dress up as an Indian for Halloween? Would I be a sexist if I dressed up as a woman? What about everyone who gets dressed up for a Renaissance fair? After all aren't they acting in a racially stereotypical way?




You're throwing up some nice strawmen, trying to make this about intent (which is impossible to prove).

Fact is, using equivalent words for other race groups would not fly in modern American society. If they wanted to call the team the Washington Blackies, the Washington N-word or the Washington K-word, I don't think anyone would go to the trouble to parse their _intent_ before they decided it was inappropriate.


----------



## Crothian (Aug 14, 2006)

I hope they don't change it.  America is getting way to PC over things like this.


----------



## Ranger REG (Aug 14, 2006)

Crothian said:
			
		

> I hope they don't change it.  America is getting way to PC over things like this.



Too PC. Too puritannical. I mean honestly, what's wrong with showing boobs in their natural glories on over-the-air TV?


----------



## Vigilance (Aug 14, 2006)

Crothian said:
			
		

> I hope they don't change it.  America is getting way to PC over things like this.



So if a team had a name from one of my previous examples, that would be ok Crothian? I think not.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Aug 14, 2006)

> I can't say for certain but I am pretty sure that someone would get offended if there was a team called the "Black Sox". And although the name the Red Skins may be in poor taste does that make it racist? What if the current owner was a Native American?




FYI, the term "Black Sox" was used to describe a game-fixing scandal that involved the White Sox of the "Shoeless" Joe Jackson era, which also gave us the phrase "Say it ain't so, Joe" when that pitcher was implicated (and he denied guilt) - alluded to by the Boomtown Rats in the 1980's.

So it DOES have a negative connotation...just not the one you'd expect.



> I hope they don't change it. America is getting way to PC over things like this.




This isn't about being PC.  "Redskin" is no different, no less racist to Native Americans than the "N-word" is to black Americans- I'm telling you this as a member of both ethnicities.

Simply put, the ONLY positive connotation the word has IS the football team...meaning it has had less rehabilitation of it than the "N-word" can claim in popular rap lyrics.

Which to some of us, just means less than zero.


----------



## Crothian (Aug 14, 2006)

Vigilance said:
			
		

> So if a team had a name from one of my previous examples, that would be ok Crothian? I think not.




I don't hear the word redskin being used today like the words you mentioned.  So, I think it is different and an analogy using a racist term that has fallen out of use would be more fitting.

It should be noted I have zero investment in this either way.  I'd perfer it if the name stayed the same, but I'm pretty sure I'm not going to be asked by those that make that decision. To me Redskin has always meant a football team as grew up neverI hearing it used any other way.


----------



## Darth Shoju (Aug 14, 2006)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> With *frankthedm* avatar as the team logo. Hmm. Where do I vote?




Wow. That wasn't cool. Or funny.

And to those throwing up the "intent" argument, that nonsense really doesn't hold water. As Vigilance pointed out, if the team name was one of the other more well-known racial slurs there wouldn't be a debate over this. 

I'm also sorry to Vigilance for contributing to the de-railing of this thread but, as the husband of an aboriginal woman (and father of a half-aboriginal child), a lot of this has made me fairly angry.


----------



## Darth Shoju (Aug 14, 2006)

Eric Anondson said:
			
		

> It actually does mean "woman", there was an activist who appeared on Oprah in 1992 who started the meme that squaw had a horrible meaning.  Linguists have been fighting it ever since, but when Oprah puts on someone with an agenda... that agenda quickly becomes the default. A lot of "journalists" haven't bothered to investigate the matter  to learn how the controversy started, and whether it was a fact, they just keep on repeating the error.
> 
> But that's just it.  People are told something is offensive to someone in another culture, or are told they should be offended, and most people just go along and agree.  The NCAA was told by a few activists that all use of Indian names is "hostile and abusive" to the all Indian cultures, and the NCAA administrators feel obliged to go right along.




What language does it mean woman in? Not meant to be confrontational but just curious myself, as my wife and her family seem to find that a fairly derogatory term.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Aug 14, 2006)

> I don't hear the word redskin being used today like the words you mentioned. So, I think it is different and an analogy using a racist term that has fallen out of use would be more fitting.




Well, you might hear it in use in middle America- Kansas, South Dakota, North Dakota, etc., though its not nearly as common, and your point is well taken.

I guarantee you there would be a BIG stink if the New Orleans Saints were renamed the New Orleans Papists or N.O. Mackerel Snappers (old, out of date slurs for Roman Catholics- another group to which I claim membership).


----------



## AdmundfortGeographer (Aug 14, 2006)

Darth Shoju said:
			
		

> What language does it mean woman in?



The Massachusett/Algonquin tribal language.  Here is an article on perceptions of the word 'squaw', and the history of offense towards the term.


----------



## Darth Shoju (Aug 14, 2006)

Eric Anondson said:
			
		

> The Massachusett/Algonquin tribal language.  Here is an article on perceptions of the word 'squaw', and the history of offense towards the term.




Interesting. Thank you.


----------



## occam (Aug 14, 2006)

Chimera said:
			
		

> 3.  "The Washington Lobbyists".




I vote for this one!


----------



## Mimic (Aug 14, 2006)

Vigilance said:
			
		

> You're throwing up some nice strawmen, trying to make this about intent (which is impossible to prove).
> 
> Fact is, using equivalent words for other race groups would not fly in modern American society. If they wanted to call the team the Washington Blackies, the Washington N-word or the Washington K-word, I don't think anyone would go to the trouble to parse their _intent_ before they decided it was inappropriate.




You are comparing apples and oranges, those are blatant racist words and it is not impossible to prove intent, just very difficult.

The article that Eric Anondson linked sums up what I feel the best.



> Perfectly honorable and acceptable words may be used in a disrespectful way. As one man said "It’s the way you say it, it’s not the word."  Just because it’s possible to use a word in a disrespectful way does not mean it should be stricken from our language.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Aug 14, 2006)

> ...those are blatant racist words and it is not impossible to prove intent, just very difficult.




"Redskin" is no less blatant than the other ones.

You might not perceive it as such because Native Americans are simply not as numerous and nationally dispersed into the melting pot as other minorities.  You simply don't hear about people being called "redskin" as often as you hear about derogatory terms for their black, hispanic, Asian or Jewish heritage...

Unless you live in the plains states.

When I lived in Kansas, it was actually refreshing to realize that people didn't care about the fact that I was black.  However, to hear some talk, the battles fought against the tribes of the area might as well have been last year (my buddy from SD said it was similar where he lived)....so I kept my Chocktaw heritage my personal secret.


----------



## takyris (Aug 14, 2006)

Crothian said:
			
		

> I don't hear the word redskin being used today like the words you mentioned.  So, I think it is different and an analogy using a racist term that has fallen out of use would be more fitting.




Really?

I mean, where I live, I don't hear the N-word being dropped except by black people using it in conversations with each other. To me, the N-word has fallen out of use except as a term of casual friendly insult between African-American men. Perhaps I should lobby for that as the new name for the Redskins, then.

Dear White Guys: Let me say this in the nicest possible way, because I know it may come as a shock: *It's not about you.*

It doesn't *matter* whether the term offends you. It doesn't *matter* whether you think that the term is racist. If the meanest cultural insult you've ever had hurled your way is that you're a geeky gamer, you are not qualified to make judgments about the relative degrees of racism in a specific statement.

If the tribes are bringing up a case, it's because the tribes are unhappy about it, presumably because they are offended by it. Or possibly because they've become corrupt and greedy and want a payoff, but you know? I'm willing to let that get settled in court, and I'm willing to let the folks who were the victims of a largely successful attempt at genocide at least have their day in court, rather than sit at my keyboard and use my white male fingers to type about how I'm not offended by it, and therefore it shouldn't be changed.

(Note: Married to a nice Cheyenne woman.)

Vig, to answer your original question: Got me. I see two options:

1) Pick a non-racial name. It's easy enough. It's been done before. The bitter old white guys who think it's about heritage and tradition and not racial stereotypes will recover.

2) Pick an Indian term with the input of a tribal committee (one composed of members of several tribes, or several tribes from around the DC area, or whatever). My limited experience with tribal committees has been less than overwhelmingly positive, but if they got signoff from that committee, they'd have it on the books. They'd have done their due diligence, and whenever anyone brought it up, they could say, "Well, we cleared it with this committee, and they're genuine Indians who were appointed by the tribes to give us the okay."

For the record, my wife (and her Dad) are sort of torn. They hate the name, because in their minds it IS racist (and her father DOES use it the way African-Americans use the N-word, sort of), but if they're stuck with it, they figure that they might as well support the team just on cultural principle. "I wish they'd change it, but until they do, I might as well root for the team."

(They also are less irked by the Redskins than the Chiefs or the Braves or the Indians, if I remember this right, because the Redskins don't have as many insulting fake-Indian shtick-things going -- the tomahawk chop or whatever it is.)

Note: No argument that the "We want it changed, but we root for them" thing is dysfunctional. When your culture gets largely destroyed and the little bit that remains gets either insulted or romanticized, a bit of dysfunction is going to creep into the picture. My wife's family is going through some other stuff that really brings that home right now.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Aug 14, 2006)

RedWick said:
			
		

> If another person is offended by the sterotype you're portraying, it's racist (or sexist or classist or whateverist).  Intent doesn't enter into it.




Only if the offense is justified, though.

I'm reminded of this article from the National Post:
_Meanwhile, things are not peachy on the campus of SUNY/Albany. The university wanted to honour baseball legend Jackie Robinson by having a picnic. But the university's equity office said this must not occur because the word "picnic" referred originally to gatherings held to lynch Blacks. In fact, as one of their own English professors (rather less committed to historical revisionism than RMC's Dr. Robinson) pointed out, the word "picnic" actually comes from a 17th-century French word that denotes a party at which everyone brings food. But Zaheer Mustafa, the equity officer, nevertheless decreed that "picnic" not be used because "the point is — the word offends." So the university decided to call it an "outing." Then, homosexual students took objection to that, and SUNY decided to publicize the event without using any noun to describe it._

Just because people take offense, it doesn't automatically mean you're being offensive.

('Baa, Baa, Rainbow Sheep', anyone?)

-Hyp.


----------



## Dingleberry (Aug 14, 2006)

takyris said:
			
		

> Dear White Guys: Let me say this in the nicest possible way, because I know it may come as a shock: *It's not about you.*




Making a statement that assumes that all "white guys" think the same way, particularly when discussing racism, is not very productive.


----------



## Vigilance (Aug 14, 2006)

takyris said:
			
		

> Dear White Guys: Let me say this in the nicest possible way, because I know it may come as a shock: *It's not about you.*




I agree totally. The fact that it doesn't offend Crothian, or someone else (most of whom are likely football fans and want their football traditions to stay intact) doesn't mean it's not offensive. 

American aboriginals got a worse shaft than any racial group in the history of this country, and that's a really long freakin list. You can either own that and take steps to make it better, or you can prefer that the original Americans be silent except for all the names of rivers and cars and football mascots taken from their language. 

Also, I dont think this suit is about money. I think it's about the opposite of money. The plaintiffs want NO ONE (including the Washington football team) to be to trademark (and thus profit from) the word redskin.


----------



## Vigilance (Aug 14, 2006)

Dingleberry said:
			
		

> Making a statement that assumes that all "white guys" think the same way, particularly when discussing racism, is not very productive.




He's not assuming they feel a certain way. What he was responding to were posters who were saying "it isn't a racist term to me" and "it doesn't offend me".

Well that's not really the point is it? Of course it doesn't offend you if you aren't a member of the group it's insulting. 

Maybe if members of local government had put bounties on the heads of your ancestors, paying $50 for the head of a member of your group, you'd understand, but I'm happy you don't have to.


----------



## Crothian (Aug 14, 2006)

Vigilance said:
			
		

> I agree totally. The fact that it doesn't offend Crothian, or someone else (most of whom are likely football fans and want their football traditions to stay intact) doesn't mean it's not offensive.




I never said it didn't offend people, I just felt that since people were specifically stating it offended them I should say that I'm not in the group offended by it.  I can only look at this from my own perspective.  I won't lose an ounce of sleep if the name is changed or not.


----------



## Crothian (Aug 14, 2006)

Vigilance said:
			
		

> Maybe if members of local government had put bounties on the heads of your ancestors, paying $50 for the head of a member of your group, you'd understand, but I'm happy you don't have to.




Go back into history and most groups were treated bad by someone.  My relatives came here to avoid being killed in WW1.  And I know it is not the same.


----------



## Dingleberry (Aug 14, 2006)

Vigilance said:
			
		

> He's not assuming they feel a certain way. What he was responding to were posters who were saying "it isn't a racist term to me" and "it doesn't offend me".
> 
> Well that's not really the point is it? Of course it doesn't offend you if you aren't a member of the group it's insulting.
> 
> Maybe if members of local government had put bounties on the heads of your ancestors, paying $50 for the head of a member of your group, you'd understand, but I'm happy you don't have to.




I couldn't disagree more with that you have to be a member of a group to be offended by racist insults against that group.  Personally, I find the use of "redskins" to be extremely offensive, even though I'm a "white guy."  Just because we don't share the same experiences doesn't mean we can't share the same opinion - just as I don't necessarily share the opinion of any other white guy who's had the same experiences I have.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Aug 14, 2006)

> I find the use of "redskins" to be extremely offensive, even though I'm a "white guy."




And this from a person whose screen name is "dingleberry."


----------



## Darth Shoju (Aug 14, 2006)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> Only if the offense is justified, though.
> 
> Just because people take offense, it doesn't automatically mean you're being offensive.
> 
> ...




No, it doesn't necessarily mean you are being offensive. 

However, in this case could you please explain how naming the team the Redskins is different than using some more obscure racial epithet for African-Americans or Jews, etc.? 

Really, I can't see how there is an argument here. We aren't talking about banning the word "picnic" here. We're talking about a team calling itself the REDSKINS. If intent is so important, then why did they stop having someone come out dressed as an Aboriginal warrior? If they weren't intending to offend anyone, then why didn't they just keep doing it?


----------



## Crothian (Aug 15, 2006)

Darth Shoju said:
			
		

> If intent is so important, then why did they stop having someone come out dressed as an Aboriginal warrior? If they weren't intending to offend anyone, then why didn't they just keep doing it?




Public pressure probably.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Aug 15, 2006)

Darth Shoju said:
			
		

> However, in this case...




Ah - note, I didn't address _this case_.

Just the general point that "If someone takes offense, intent is irrelevant".

I would just prefer to see it qualified as "If someone takes _objectively justifiable_ offense".

-Hyp.


----------



## Vigilance (Aug 15, 2006)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> Just the general point that "If someone takes offense, intent is irrelevant".
> 
> I would just prefer to see it qualified as "If someone takes _objectively justifiable_ offense".
> 
> -Hyp.




Well, in this actual case, I would say the offense is objectively justified.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Aug 15, 2006)

Vigilance said:
			
		

> Well, in this actual case, I would say the offense is objectively justified.




I'm not arguing with you on that 

-Hyp.


----------



## Bront (Aug 15, 2006)

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> The Redskins, Chiefs and Braves have all come under fire at various times for their names, all of which have negative connotations to Native Americans.  FYI, "Chief," while a term of status _within_ the community, has been used _outside_ the community in much the same way as "boy" is for blacks- a term of belittlement.
> 
> The Indians get in trouble for their iconography, chants & hand chop stuff.
> 
> ...



This is one of the things I find curious.  Agreeably, the Redskins could be construed as offensive, but the Indiands less so, and the Braves or Chiefs?  Hardly I think in the context of which they are used.

The Blackhawks haven't had a problem that I know of, but the Fighting Illini have actualy been sanctioned by the NCAA, a group that allows the Seminoles (Admittedly, who use the name with permition), and the Fighting Irish (which should be no less offensive than the Fighting Illini).

I think the whole thing is idiotic personaly.  I'll buy some of the names as being offensive, but some are tastefully done and should be considered a tribute.  Next you'll tell me that the San Diego Padres is offensive to religious men because it's used in derogitory ways in some cultures.


----------



## Vigilance (Aug 15, 2006)

Bront said:
			
		

> I think the whole thing is idiotic personaly.  I'll buy some of the names as being offensive, but some are tastefully done and should be considered a tribute.  Next you'll tell me that the San Diego Padres is offensive to religious men because it's used in derogitory ways in some cultures.




Well- I don't think I intended to discuss naming conventions in general. As to the other major league clubs you mention, while some may consider their names in bad taste, no one is suing to revoke their trademarks that I'm aware.

And as for the silliness about the Fighting Irish and Padres being offensive, go read a history book. No one ever offered $50 dollars for the head of an irishman in this country. 

If the team name of Notre Dame was the Fighting Mics or the Fighting Limeys... you might see a different reaction. At any rate it would at least be an actual analogy.  

I realize some folks would just rather not be bothered with remembering the ugliness of the past and think it's peachy keen to call a team a name people of the group it refers to find offensive. Which is the point. People find the word redskin offensive, based on the way it was used in the past and the history that goes along with it. 

People also see no problem with the confederate flag over a courthouse. Doesn't make them right. 

Chuck


----------



## Crothian (Aug 15, 2006)

Vigilance said:
			
		

> And as for the silliness about the Fighting Irish and Padres being offensive, go read a history book. No one ever offered $50 dollars for the head of an irishman in this country.




How does this make it more or less offensive?  It sounds like that because the Native Americans were treated bad makes derogatory words towards them worse then other groups.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Aug 15, 2006)

> This is one of the things I find curious. Agreeably, the Redskins could be construed as offensive, but the Indiands less so, and the Braves or Chiefs? Hardly I think in the context of which they are used.




"Brave" and "Chief," while having certain positive connotations, also have a history of being used to belittle male Native Americans in much the same way as "boy" has been used to belittle male blacks in this country.  Furthermore, merely removing the words from their original context may be viewed as disrespectful.  "Chief" or "Brave" goes from being an honorific to being equated with entertainment for the masses...and with competitors' names like "Buccaneer" and "Pirate."

While the context of a sporting team with a fairly classy reputation may be positive, it still offends those who are having their culture co-opted & possibly stereotyped (both clubs use "Indian war-chants," and capped off with a word with a mixed context.  Sometimes, its best to avoid the whole controversy, IMHO.

The objection against the "Indians" is a bit more abstract- and it starts with the team mascot/emblem who is a characature, along with the much objected-to war-chants, etc.

Simply put, its about respect.


----------



## takyris (Aug 15, 2006)

Crothian said:
			
		

> How does this make it more or less offensive?  It sounds like that because the Native Americans were treated bad makes derogatory words towards them worse then other groups.




1) Yes. Was this up for debate? Would you like to concede the point, or would you like me to explain how a racial epithet might be mildly annoying when your racial group has most of the money and most of the power and leads a comfortable life, while a racial epithet applied to somebody who has been actively discriminated against because of that race might be seen as a tad worse?

(1.5) The Irish did have a bit of a time in their journey to acceptance in the U.S., however. There was a time when the Irish were the dirty foreigners coming to steal jobs from the good honest citizens. Those days are a ways behind us, now, though, and it's pretty rare to find somebody who's got a thing about the Irish -- which is one of the additional reasons that the caricatures aren't as bad. On the other hand, travel through the plains states, and it's pretty easy to find somebody who's got a thing about the Indians.)

2) Look at Notre Dame's ethnic makeup. Look at the number of Irish-support deals going on in Boston (the St. Patrick's Day Parade, for starters). Boston and Notre Dame *earn* their Irish/Celtic caricatures, because there are enough people of that background who directly support the team and think of it as an "us", not a "them". When I visited Notre Dame, it was like walking through an extended family reunion from my mother's side of the family. (Mom: Almost All Irish; Dad: Only Mostly Irish.)

(2.5) Yes, that does mean that if a university with a large African-American population wanted to make its mascot something that would, to external appearances, seem offensive -- I sincerely doubt that the N-word would ever make it, but how about the Runaways, with the mascot a plucky slave hopping over a fence and making a run for the northern states? -- then I'd consider that less offensive. I wouldn't volunteer it myself, god knows, but if it's an "us" thing, then it's a statement of identity, as the Fightin' Irishman is.)

(2.5.1) I only refer to the mascot for the Fightin' Irish. I don't think many Irishmen outside the Boston area have given a rat's behind about the Celtics since Larry Bird left, and anyway, they pronounce the darn name wrong.)


----------



## Darth Shoju (Aug 15, 2006)

Crothian said:
			
		

> Public pressure probably.




So why not just stand on the "But we don't INTEND to offend anyone by it." argument if that is so morally justified?


----------



## Darth Shoju (Aug 15, 2006)

Mimic said:
			
		

> You are comparing apples and oranges, those are blatant racist words and it is not impossible to prove intent, just very difficult.
> 
> The article that Eric Anondson linked sums up what I feel the best.






> Quote:
> Perfectly honorable and acceptable words may be used in a disrespectful way.




So Redskin is a perfectly honorable and acceptable word?



> As one man said "It’s the way you say it, it’s not the word."




So if I drop the N-bomb with a smile and a wink it is cool?


----------



## takyris (Aug 15, 2006)

I'm seeing a lot of "how can you tell what is and what isn't" arguments here. That's a lovely argument, and I wish it well. There seem to be a lot of people everywhere, and I'm not saying here in particular, who enjoy doing a little song and dance about how it's impossible to know, really, what is and isn't offensive, and how they know one person who didn't mind it, so really, who's to say? That kind of "the line is so fuzzy!" argument is a great way to get away with saying or doing something that you know is, in fact, actually offensive.

By which logic, me calling them "pampered little upper-class white-boy idiots" should be open to the same interpretation. And I'm not referring to anyone here in those terms, because that would be disrespectful, which is against this site's policy, although really, who's to say what's disrespectful, anyway, because some people might just laugh and wave it off when I say that they're pampered little upper-class white-boy idiots who haven't been out of their privileged little high-speed-Net-enabled worlds and have no idea how the vast majority of the planet lives. 

I'm not saying that the line isn't fuzzy. I'm saying that this isn't in the fuzzy part.

"Redskin" is an offensive term. Yes, really.


----------



## Vigilance (Aug 15, 2006)

Crothian said:
			
		

> How does this make it more or less offensive?  It sounds like that because the Native Americans were treated bad makes derogatory words towards them worse then other groups.




I can't believe this is a serious question. 

Yes, groups that have been treated the worst tend to be a little touchy about people making sport of their ancestors' suffering. Makes one think maybe they haven't learned what an evil was committed. Makes one think maybe they find the subject amusing, something for sport during a half time show. 

If Germany had a club with an anti-semitic name, it would be considered the worst kind of insult. The German people themselves recognize this. Look at the laws they have that the Holocaust must be taught, Nazi imagery is forbidden nationwide (except in a VERY strict historical context).

In other words, their behavior leads one to suspect they have learned a lesson about terrible acts committed not by them, but by their culture, that leads them to attempt to never forget or forgive, so that it may not happen again.

Other cultures handle this differently, by coming up with funny nicknames and warchants that distort and make an object of ridicule the culture they harmed. And apparently the common people don't care, as long as their football traditions are intact. 

What about my traditions? 

And btw... don't forget that they aren't saying the team can't use the word. They're saying they shouldn't be allowed to PROFIT off of t-shirts emblazoned with the name.


----------



## Vigilance (Aug 15, 2006)

takyris said:
			
		

> I'm not saying that the line isn't fuzzy. I'm saying that this isn't in the fuzzy part.
> 
> "Redskin" is an offensive term. Yes, really.




Here's the way the American Heritage Dictionary defines reskin for those for whom this is a gray area:




> red·skin
> n. Offensive Slang
> 
> Used as a disparaging term for a Native American.




Here's Princeton University's wordnet definition:



> n : offensive terms for Native Americans [syn: Redskin, Injun, red man]




For those who want to say "what about the Braves and the Indians"... when someone starts talking about those teams, your arguments will be fine and valid at that time.

However right here and now, we're talking about the word redskin, about which there is no debate. 

Chuck


----------



## Numion (Aug 15, 2006)

RedWick said:
			
		

> If another person is offended by the sterotype you're portraying, it's racist (or sexist or classist or whateverist).  Intent doesn't enter into it.




So there's a way to actually sue those fatbeards who play hot ninja lesbians?


----------



## Vigilance (Aug 15, 2006)

Numion said:
			
		

> So there's a way to actually sue those fatbeards who play hot ninja lesbians?




Only if they try to trademark it (to the best of my knowledge)


----------



## Bront (Aug 15, 2006)

Vigilance said:
			
		

> And as for the silliness about the Fighting Irish and Padres being offensive, go read a history book. No one ever offered $50 dollars for the head of an irishman in this country.



First of all, I wouldn't bet on that last point if I were you.

Second of all, while yes, the Padres was simply an odd example, the Fighting Irish and the Fighting Illini (University of Illinois) seem to be pretty similar, except the Irish mascot is a bit of a caracature while the Illini chief is not in any way.  

And Crothain brings up a good point.  Just because one group was treated worse through the course of history, why are words that describe them badly more frowned upon then?

You use the example "boy" as derogitory, that's a new one on me.


----------



## Vigilance (Aug 15, 2006)

Bront said:
			
		

> First of all, I wouldn't bet on that last point if I were you.
> 
> Second of all, while yes, the Padres was simply an odd example, the Fighting Irish and the Fighting Illini (University of Illinois) seem to be pretty similar, except the Irish mascot is a bit of a caracature while the Illini chief is not in any way.
> 
> ...




You can try to cloud the issue all you want Bront. No one is protesting "Fighting Irish" anywhere. What does that tell you? 

And did you read my dictionary definitions above? The definition of the word is as a racial slur. That's ALL it means. It was never the name of a group of people like Irish or Illinois. It was something IMPOSED on them that they find insulting.

You can try to be a typical smart-mouth semantically-inclined internet poster about this issue all you want. It's a word in league with the N-word and the K-word. That's all it is, and that is all it will ever be.

And you are defending that.

Nice work.

Chuck


----------



## frankthedm (Aug 15, 2006)

> And Crothain brings up a good point.  Just because one group was treated worse through the course of history, why are words that describe them badly more frowned upon then?



It is somewhat like talking down to someone who is dying rather than someone who was badly injured but is recovering more or less. 







> You use the example "boy" as derogitory, that's a new one on me.



I think that one stems from the use of "boy" to address a grown man as someone below the speaker.


----------



## JediSoth (Aug 15, 2006)

They should just rename the team "The Washington D.C. Team" and be done with it. Someone could be offended by just about anything, so maybe we should just abandon team names altogether.

JediSoth


----------



## Vigilance (Aug 15, 2006)

JediSoth said:
			
		

> They should just rename the team "The Washington D.C. Team" and be done with it. Someone could be offended by just about anything, so maybe we should just abandon team names altogether.
> 
> JediSoth




So people are just too PC and touchy now huh? Funny that there is exactly one team, from all the pro sports franchises, under this kind of suit. 

And also funny that the people making the suit aren't seeking damages, and aren't even telling them what they're allowed to call it.

All they're saying is you shouldn't profit off THIS ONE WORD.

Everyone keeps trying to make this something it isn't. It isn't about ANY OTHER WORD. Just one scurrilous word that has not been banished to the shadows as the N-word and K-word have, that should be.


----------



## Crothian (Aug 15, 2006)

Vigilance said:
			
		

> Everyone keeps trying to make this something it isn't. It isn't about ANY OTHER WORD. Just one scurrilous word that has not been banished to the shadows as the N-word and K-word have, that should be.




Those words though are not banished.  I hear them used in a negative way more then Redskin.      Posters are just expanding the thread.  There was no way a thread like this was going to stay so narrowly defined.


----------



## Crothian (Aug 15, 2006)

Darth Shoju said:
			
		

> So why not just stand on the "But we don't INTEND to offend anyone by it." argument if that is so morally justified?




I'm not actually with the Redskin organization so I can't say why they didn't.  But like most businesses one looks at what they are doing and the effect a change woulkd have on the bottom line.  I imagine it was a simple change to make and great from a PR standpoint that wouldn't effect the money they brought in.


----------



## Vigilance (Aug 15, 2006)

Crothian said:
			
		

> Those words though are not banished.  I hear them used in a negative way more then Redskin.      Posters are just expanding the thread.  There was no way a thread like this was going to stay so narrowly defined.




So one more time, Ive asked you this before and you always duck the question: Washington N-word would be ok with you then huh? What about the Washington K-word?

I have no problem with the thread being "expanded" as you put it, but people keep expanding it in ways that are disingenuous.

Expanding it to "brave" or "indian" is BS and you know it. The DICTIONARY DEFINITION of the word is a slur on Native Americans.

That's ALL it means and all it EVER meant.

So if you'd be comfortable with a team called either of those other two words that are in the same league, please just say so. 

In other words, own that the word is racist. Because it is. Then we can compare it to other racist words.


----------



## ReignMan (Aug 15, 2006)

I have to say that I, until reading this thread, never knew the meaning of the R-word. If this meaning is not in dispute I can't see a justifiable reason to keep it as a team name/trademark. The point being that it is not the intent or context of the word which is making it offensive but the word itself.

However, what you can see in the responses is a general discontent with the ever increasing drive for political correctness which I echo, at some point we need to stop the stupidness and lighten up. (not over this name I must add)

Every race, religion, tribe, colour and nationality has at some point been the victim and also the tormentor, it is an unfortunate fact of human nature. No this isn't an invite for "my group never did anything" responses because I can guarantee you that from someone (or somethings) perspective, you probably have.

Thanks,
         ReignMan - British Imperialist Scum


----------



## Crothian (Aug 15, 2006)

Vigilance said:
			
		

> So one more time, Ive asked you this before and you always duck the question: Washington N-word would be ok with you then huh? What about the Washington K-word?




I think if I'd been hearing it as the team name all my life it would be more acceptiable then just changing the name to that now.  Oddly enough the franchise was orgianlly the Boston Braves.  



> That's ALL it means and all it EVER meant.




It also means the team the plays football in Washnington DC.  Dictionaries though usually don't always have many proper nouns in them.


----------



## Vigilance (Aug 15, 2006)

Crothian said:
			
		

> It also means the team the plays football in Washnington DC.  Dictionaries though usually don't always have many proper nouns in them.




But they DO have this one, and it's definition ranges from "offensive" in the two sources I quoted above, to "usually offensive" in Miriam Webster, which is the EXACT same way that dictionary defines the N-word and the K-word.

Words, I would point out, no one in this thread has even been WILLING to say. What does that tell you?

You can stay in denial all you want. It's the equivalent of words improper for polite company, improper for this message board and improper as the name of a business.

And I like how your argument basically boils down to "I can get used to anything for a football team name, no matter how offensive, just so long as I grow up with it".

The fact that you think that IS THE PROBLEM!

It's a scurrilous word. It shouldn't be something ignorant kids grow up thinking it's ok because it has the respectability of a pro sports franchise to cloak it.


----------



## Crothian (Aug 15, 2006)

Vigilance said:
			
		

> What does that tell you?




That they violate the rules of the site and people don't want to get banned.  I imagine if this topic was on CM or another site it was allowed you might see a different response.  



> And I like how your argument basically boils down to "I can get used to anything for a football team name, no matter how offensive, just so long as I grow up with it".
> .




It is not my arguement.  I stated earlier I don't care either way.  I think that the word has lost meaning.  I can't recall the last time I ever heard it used as an insult and I have native american friends that have never been called that.  I believe that eventually all these words will lose these meanings except in historical context.


----------



## Vigilance (Aug 15, 2006)

Crothian said:
			
		

> It is not my arguement.  I stated earlier I don't care either way.  I think that the word has lost meaning.  I can't recall the last time I ever heard it used as an insult and I have native american friends that have never been called that.  I believe that eventually all these words will lose these meanings except in historical context.




As long as people defend its use in the NOW its pretty hard for it to become part of the THEN.


----------



## takyris (Aug 15, 2006)

Crothian said:
			
		

> It is not my arguement.  I stated earlier I don't care either way.  I think that the word has lost meaning.  I can't recall the last time I ever heard it used as an insult and I have native american friends that have never been called that.




And I have Native American friends and in-laws who HAVE. As an insult.

Vig has showed the dictionary definitions. People with actual Native heritage have brought up their points of view, which, not to put too fine a point on it, sort of outrank yours as far as getting to decide whether a given term is offensive. If you can't see it, that's on you.

Chaka when the walls fell, Vig.


----------



## Vigilance (Aug 15, 2006)

takyris said:
			
		

> Chaka when the walls fell, Vig.




Hah! That is one of my all time favorite TNG episodes, err what I meant to say was "Darmok and Jilad on the ocean".

Seriously though, my actual purpose for posting this was sort of "what now". I started with the assumption that square 1 was "we all agree the word is wrong, what now".

I see now how naive that was. Apparently the discussion was needed, because of the complete indifference of most in this thread. 

Since it isn't an insult to them, it isn't an insult. Nice.

And as much as everyone keeps tossing around that the N-word is used in sometimes friendly ways, no one would tolerate a business called that (no matter what Crothian thinks- apprently there's a Truman-show-esque magic that happens with the past- if it was like that when we were little, it must be ok).

Glad our parents weren't like that about Jim Crow. It was like that when THEY were little. It didnt magically make it ok. 

And of course this ignores (conveniently) that the BEST analogue is the K-word for Jewish people, which, like redskin, is ALSO a word used predominately by their oppressors, who were KILLING them.

Say that word around a big tough Jewish veteran sometime. I guarantee fun will be had by all.


----------



## Crothian (Aug 15, 2006)

Vigilance said:
			
		

> As long as people defend its use in the NOW its pretty hard for it to become part of the THEN.




No one is defending its use as an insult.  I see the word having two meanings like many words do.


----------



## Crothian (Aug 15, 2006)

takyris said:
			
		

> Vig has showed the dictionary definitions. People with actual Native heritage have brought up their points of view, which, not to put too fine a point on it, sort of outrank yours as far as getting to decide whether a given term is offensive. If you can't see it, that's on you.




Ya, that is very common.  I'm not allowed to have opinions or mine don't count as much because I'm not in a certain group.  

I can see that the term is offensive, I'm not doubting that.


----------



## Vigilance (Aug 15, 2006)

Crothian said:
			
		

> No one is defending its use as an insult.  I see the word having two meanings like many words do.




Right but there's no other definition of the word.

The definition is "a disparaging word for a Native American".

You then ADDED to the dictionary (which doesn't really affect the defintion) "the Washington football team".

So the washington football team takes a word that was never anything but an insult as it's team moniker, and then we fast forward 30 years, and it's magically ok, bucause now it has a lot of football tradition behind it.

That's basically what you're saying.


----------



## takyris (Aug 15, 2006)

Crothian said:
			
		

> Ya, that is very common.  I'm not allowed to have opinions or mine don't count as much because I'm not in a certain group.




Your skin color doesn't preclude you from having a valid opinion. Your ignorance does. Yes, if you want to feel persecuted and you need somebody to say it to your face: because you are ignorant of the culture, I believe that your opinion of this culturally specific matter counts less than other people's.

Much like, say, I consider the opinions of a non-gamer without any gaming knowledge less valid than the opinions of a gamer or someone who has studied gamers when the question of "Do roleplaying games lead to real-life violence?" comes up.

If you're ignorant about the subject matter, your opinion on the subject matter carries less weight. That doesn't mean you're a horrible person. That doesn't mean I think less of you overall. There are many many many areas in which I am completely ignorant. If I do debate matters in that area, I try not to assume that my arguments are going to have equal weight. Because, you know, I'm ignorant in those areas.



> I can see that the term is offensive, I'm not doubting that.




Really? You just said that the term had lost its meaning. People who know more than you do about the subject matter have corrected you. You also said that you think it's a term with two meanings, only one of which is offensive, despite the fact that the one you classify as non-offensive is descended from the offensive one.

Call me crazy, but even if I'd grown up knowing of a football team called "The N___'s", if a bunch of African-American people came forward and said, "We find that term offensive," my response wouldn't be, "But it's just a football-team name! They're not using it in an offensive way!" And I say that despite never having heard the N-word used in real-life (not counting the Klan members on Springer). The fact that I don't live in an area with a lot of racism against blacks doesn't preclude me from understanding that a given term might be offensive, even if it's been turned into the name of a football team.

But maybe I'm just crazy-PC.


----------



## Crothian (Aug 15, 2006)

Vigilance said:
			
		

> Right but there's no other definition of the word.




A raven is a bird.  It is also the name of the Baltimore football team.  No dictionary I know of lists it as the Baltimore football team.  The football team is obviously not a group of birds, so there are defintions for words especially proper nouns that are not in the dictionary.  That's what I'm getting at.

If the word Redskin had the added meaning in a dictionary of "the name of the Washinton DC football team" would it make a difference to you?


----------



## Crothian (Aug 15, 2006)

takyris said:
			
		

> Your skin color doesn't preclude you from having a valid opinion. Your ignorance does. Yes, if you want to feel persecuted and you need somebody to say it to your face: because you are ignorant of the culture, I believe that your opinion of this culturally specific matter counts less than other people's.




My opinion means I am ignorant of the culture?  There is no way someone could have the opinion and not be ignorant? 



> Really? You just said that the term had lost its meaning. People who know more than you do about the subject matter have corrected you. You also said that you think it's a term with two meanings, only one of which is offensive, despite the fact that the one you classify as non-offensive is descended from the offensive one.




I said it had lost its meaning to me, not to everyone.  That is hardly the case as this thread proves.  Word meanings over time to alter even hateful words.


----------



## takyris (Aug 15, 2006)

Crothian said:
			
		

> My opinion means I am ignorant of the culture?  There is no way someone could have the opinion and not be ignorant?




No. Your ignorance of the culture means that you are ignorant of the culture. Mind you, I'm just judging your knowledge or ignorance of the culture based on what you write. I don't have anything else to go by. If you'd like to write something that demonstrates that you are not ignorant of the culture, you are more than welcome to do so.

I love your Socratic approach in which I'm eventually supposed to be bound up in a giant rhetorical tangle, unable to conclusively prove that you're ignorant, and therefore unable to say that your opinion has any less weight than anyone else's. However, you *are* ignorant in this matter, unless you've been holding some good information back -- information a bit more conclusive than "I have lots of Indian friends, and they've never had that racial slur used on them."

If you have no additional knowledge you haven't shared, then you're ignorant in the matter, and your opinion does weigh less.

If you do have additional knowledge you haven't shared, then you're evidently just being coy, in which case... why?

Vig *is* Native American. I'm married to a Cheyenne woman whose Cheyenne father runs a nonprofit organization that works with Native American kids. I've been on multiple reservations. I've written papers about the Pine Ridge massacre and the Alcatraz occupation. I got VIP seats at the opening of the National Museum of the American Indian, whose president is my wife's uncle. I was at the last four Cheyenne Sundances, and served as my father-in-law's catcher at one of them. I've had late-night talks with my father-in-law about the racism he's experienced, and the radical difference in perception that occured when he opted to grow out his hair and "look more Indian".

You're welcome to have that opinion -- everyone is entitled to have an opinion -- but all opinions are not created equal. Some of them have more weight because the person holding that opinion has some knowledge of the subject matter.

So... yes. I do know more than you do. Vig knows more than you do. Your attempt to act persecuted because your ignorant opinion doesn't carry equal weight is ridiculous.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Aug 15, 2006)

> A raven is a bird. It is also the name of the Baltimore football team. No dictionary I know of lists it as the Baltimore football team. The football team is obviously not a group of birds, so there are defintions for words especially proper nouns that are not in the dictionary. That's what I'm getting at.




True, but the latter definition is derivative of and referential to the dictionary definition of "a kind of bird."  By naming the team thusly, they are trying to relate themselves to it in some way.  They are trying to associate themselves with the facts about the bird, or its imagery and legends surrounding the bird in an effort to say something about themselves.

In the particular case of the Ravens, that relation has to do with the classic Poe piece and the writer's connecion to Baltimore.  Thus the name is about civic pride in one of the city's greatest citizens.

In the case of the Redskins, one must ask what are they trying to relate themselves to?  The only place they can point is to the racially charged term for Native Americans.  Are they trying to associate themselves with the hateful attitudes of the early settlers?  Or the soldiers who hunted Native Americans for sport and bounties?  Perhaps they're referring to a hated foe?

Where is the good?  What is the team trying to say about itself?


----------



## Crothian (Aug 15, 2006)

takyris said:
			
		

> If you do have additional knowledge you haven't shared, then you're evidently just being coy, in which case... why?




Because I have nothing I feel I need to prove to you.  As I keep saying in the thread I'm not attached to it for or against.  



> So... yes. I do know more than you do. Vig knows more than you do. Your attempt to act persecuted because your ignorant opinion doesn't carry equal weight is ridiculous.




This isn't me acting persecuted.  This is me being insulted now.  I was trying to ask questions, present the way I see things and try to understand how things were for other people.  I'm sorry that was not able to happen here.


----------



## Crothian (Aug 15, 2006)

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> Where is the good?  What is the team trying to say about itself?




That is a very good question.  I tried to google some insight on why the name was choosen but was not able to find anything.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Aug 15, 2006)

Vigilance, this thread seems to have diverged quite a long way from your original hopes for it.

Do you want it kept open, or should it be closed now? If you'd like it closed, just report this post and we'll do it for you.

It was an interesting question (I'm British, and so pretty ignorant of much of the issues which have been raised here - I'm grateful for the education, personally).

Cheers


----------



## takyris (Aug 15, 2006)

Crothian said:
			
		

> Because I have nothing I feel I need to prove to you.  As I keep saying in the thread I'm not attached to it for or against.




Really? Does this look at all familiar?



			
				Crothian said:
			
		

> I hope they don't change it. America is getting way to PC over things like this.




Please explain to me how that statement implies that you have no opinion for or against.

If you want to backpedal, backpedal. But please don't pretend that you came into this looking for an open exchange of ideas.



			
				Crothian said:
			
		

> This isn't me acting persecuted.




Really? Does this look at all familiar?



			
				Crothian said:
			
		

> I'm not allowed to have opinions or mine don't count as much because I'm not in a certain group.




Please explain what you meant to imply in that statement, if what you meant to imply was not, "I am being persecuted because somebody doesn't think my opinions are valuable."



			
				Crothian said:
			
		

> I was trying to ask questions, present the way I see things and try to understand how things were for other people.




Really? Does this look at all familiar?



			
				Crothian said:
			
		

> I can only look at this from my own perspective.




Exchange of ideas implies the ability to look at things from somebody else's perspective. Your first post was, "I hope they don't change it. America is getting way too PC over things like this." That doesn't exactly scream, "I'm looking for an open exchange of ideas."

Walking into a potentially heated discussion over a matter of which you are ignorant and making a broad sweeping statement is not conducive to enlightened discussion. Owning your ignorance and asking questions is fine, but using ignorance as justification for your opinion is probably not going to win you any points.

There are certainly valid opposing viewpoints. There's room for debate about whether the fact that the Redskins name may have been given in honor of head coach William Dietz, who was part Sioux. There's room for debate about whether the fact that the logo is a normal-looking Indian and not an exaggerated stereotype is a mitigating factor. There's room for debate about whether a name that was not intended to be racist (if that is indeed the case here) can still be considered offensive when the term used to honor the race is used today in a disparaging manner (for example, a team called the Negroes might be considered offensive, even though the term Negro was not originally a racial slur). If you were making those points, that would be fine.

But your argument boils down to, "I haven't experienced this form of racism or witnessed it firsthand, so I don't think it's offensive... until enough people argue the point, at which point I'll declare that I never said I didn't think it was offensive."

That's an ignorant viewpoint. It doesn't make you a bad person to have it, but it does mean that you're ignorant in this particular area. Ignorance is not an insult. It is a simply a condition that should be corrected, or at least acknowledged.


----------



## Umbran (Aug 15, 2006)

takyris said:
			
		

> So... yes. I do know more than you do. Vig knows more than you do. Your attempt to act persecuted because your ignorant opinion doesn't carry equal weight is ridiculous.




To expand slightly on what Plane Sailing said - this sort of writing rather mirrors the stuff we see when something is political.  

That you felt the need to start getting personal here is regrettable.  I strongly suggest folks don't go any further along these lines in this thread.


----------



## Crothian (Aug 15, 2006)

takyris, so you don't think I'm ignoring your last post I am not replying to it and am following Umbran's suggestion.  Thank you.


----------



## takyris (Aug 15, 2006)

I'd say that it mirrors the political discussions because it very much is one, however much Vig tried to steer it away from that.

I apologize for getting heated, Crothian. This is something that is close enough to my family that I have a great deal of trouble remaining calm when certain things are brought up. From the viewpoint of somebody who hasn't seen that kind of racism in action, it's an interesting intellectual discussion. I can't see it from that angle, and I'm sorry that I made it personal.


----------



## Crothian (Aug 15, 2006)

takyris said:
			
		

> I'd say that it mirrors the political discussions because it very much is one, however much Vig tried to steer it away from that.
> 
> I apologize for getting heated, Crothian. This is something that is close enough to my family that I have a great deal of trouble remaining calm when certain things are brought up. From the viewpoint of somebody who hasn't seen that kind of racism in action, it's an interesting intellectual discussion. I can't see it from that angle, and I'm sorry that I made it personal.




It's okay, I was a bit obtuse in some of my posts now that I reread them.  It was good to read it from your point of view, it has made me think on it.  Thanks for that.


----------



## bodhi (Aug 15, 2006)

takyris said:
			
		

> ...who haven't been out of their privileged little high-speed-Net-enabled worlds ...



I've gone without broadband before.

The horror! The horror...


----------



## Plane Sailing (Aug 15, 2006)

takyris, Crothian - thanks guys.


----------



## AdmundfortGeographer (Aug 15, 2006)

A little digging into the history of the Redskins franchise name:

From the Pro Football Hall of Fame


> "_WASHINGTON REDSKINS - George Preston Marshall acquired an NFL franchise in 1932 and named it the Boston Braves after the city’s Major League Baseball team. However, after a financially devastating and poorly attended season in 1932, Marshall abandoned the Braves name in favor of the Redskins. The Redskins name was retained when the team was moved to Washington in 1937._"



A little more digging into George Preston Marshall found this excerpt: 







> "_So while the NFL gets on its high horse about racial tolerance, they are helping its most valuable billion dollar franchise to maintain a name that exemplifies the worst traditions of racial violence and bigotry in U.S. history. The Redskins name was the product of their arch-segregationist owner George Preston Marshall in his effort to make the Skins the team of the South. Even their fight song Hail to the Redskins used to end with instead of "fight for old DC" "Fight for old Dixie!"_"



However, wikipedia has this to say: 







> "_The name "Redskins" was in honor of their head coach William (Lone Star) Dietz who was of part-Sioux decent. The team then moved to Washington, D.C. in 1937._" And _"When the football team moved to Fenway Park (home of the Boston Red Sox) the next year, Marshall also changed the name of the football Braves to the "Redskins", to honor their head coach and further distinguish the team from their ex-landlords._ Then "_It is *sometimes* claimed that the team was named the Boston Redskins in honor of the head coach, William "Lone Star" Dietz, an American Indian._"



A deeply researched language blog post on the history of the term "redskins" and whether it was always offensive. This excerpt is rather to the issue: 







> "_The term redskin of course goes much farther back than 1933. The details of this history have recently been explored by Ives Goddard of the Smithsonian Institution, in a paper (warning a .pdf file!) conveniently available on-line. Some of the evidence is available in greater detail on Goddard's web site. You can read speeches (warning another .pdf file!) by the Meskwaki chief Black Thunder and the Omaha chief Big Elk in which the expression redskin is used, and early nineteenth century examples of the Meskwaki usage of terms meaning *redskin* and *whiteskin*._



So, just a little Googling for ya all.  I recommend folks follow each of the links and read  the entire articles, and not just my excerpts.


----------



## jezter6 (Aug 16, 2006)

trancejeremy said:
			
		

> Heh, I wouldn't be surprised to see them sell off a new name.
> 
> The Washington UPS Delivery Guys
> 
> Maybe not like that blatant, but seriously, Dodge is a huge advertiser during Rams games, simply because of the name (Ram)




Kinda inconvenient when they play in FedEx field.

- jez, just another UPS employee


----------



## Ranger REG (Aug 16, 2006)

jezter6 said:
			
		

> Kinda inconvenient when they play in FedEx field.
> 
> - jez, just another UPS employee



I thought the Cleveland Browns are the UPS guys.


----------



## Vigilance (Aug 16, 2006)

Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> Vigilance, this thread seems to have diverged quite a long way from your original hopes for it.
> 
> Do you want it kept open, or should it be closed now? If you'd like it closed, just report this post and we'll do it for you.
> 
> ...




I think it's probably best to close it at this point. I didn't intend it to be a political thread (perhaps naively) but I think that's exactly what it has become. 

To Crothian, apologies if I got hot under the collar. I wasn't trying to attack you personally. 

Chuck


----------



## Dinkeldog (Aug 16, 2006)

Closed at Vigilance's request.


----------

