Washington Redskins Name Controversy

[Famine]

Ok

That doesn't support what you said in any way. Try again.

While you're at it, try answering these questions rather than dodging them.

And in this case it's next to a picture of a native American.
So now everyone's happy that the word "Redskin" in this instance is used to refer to native Americans (or at least one native American), rather than potatoes. Do you think that this is an acceptable use?

You accept that the Redskin name refers to a Native American and not a potato, given that the badge is a Native American and not a potato, surely?

 

[fatkrakr]

What???? I must be misunderstanding what you wanted from me by your comment. Yes I believe it is Native American they are depicting.

 

[Pupik]

It's not like they're moving the team...the Redskins are clearly named after American Indians, and having that name in the nation's capital is possibly what makes it more offensive. Time for a team name change that's sorely overdue.

I wouldn't wear these hat(e)s either:

 

[huskeR32]

What???? I must be misunderstanding what you wanted from me by your comment. Yes I believe it is Native American they are depicting.

I believe he wanted you to realize that:

Well according to some here that doesn't matter. What matters is now that someone made the connection it must go as well. While were at it lets get rid of the Pirates as well, I own a boat and I think Pirates sheds a bad light on us boat owners.

Is a ridiculous way to respond to:

I may be mistaken here, but I'm pretty sure that the Reds were once the Red Stockings, and at some point just shortened it to Reds.

The Redskins name clearly refers to a particular race of people. The Reds name does not. Your attempt to equate them fails. Badly.

Your Pirates comment is probably even more obtuse, for reasons that I hope you can deduce on your own.

 

[Famine]

Yes I believe it is Native American they are depicting.

That's question one of two answered at least.

Here's the other one again: Do you think it's acceptable to refer to Native Americans as "Redskins"?

In answering this, please feel free to bear in mind that you have already accepted that the name "Washington Redskins" allied to the team badge of a Native American means that the Redskins name refers to Native Americans and this part is no longer in question.

 

[fatkrakr]

That would depend on how it was used I guess, but at this time with all the current uproar surrounding the word no.

 

[Danoff]

If we don't judge the intent over the word(s), we're going to eventually end up with no words left.

How many Redskins fans view the name as a way to honour a barbarous time in history? I dare say, none.

This isn't about whether or not everyone or anyone who has used the word uses it in a hateful way. This is about a business making an intelligent business decision. And I think that having a racist trademark (even if none of the fans are racist) is idiotic.

 

[Tornado]

I highly doubt you'd tell an African American that they had no place being offended by the n-word, would you? Yet, that seems to be your attitude about "redskins."

If the people that that name applies to find it to be racist and disrespectful, then it's racist and disrespectful.

That's probably about the worst example you could have used. In fact, it's probably the best example to show that words are *not* inherently racist no matter the context.

 

[Omnis]

I'd like to see the name get changed, along with the logo. But then I'd also want the Reds and Indians get different names and logos too. Would people be offended if they were the Washington White Trash? Um, I'll check the Yes box on that.


Jerome

The Reds? What? As Husker said, the Reds have nothing to do with indians. Their name comes from their uniforms.

The Indians as a name also isn't offensive. They've moved well away from Chief Wahoo, their cartoony mascot, as well.

 

[Famine]

That would depend on how it was used I guess, but at this time with all the current uproar surrounding the word no.

So, you agree that:

Washington Redskins' name and logo make it clear that "Redskins" refers to Native Americans.
It's not acceptable to refer to Native Americans as "Redskins".

So what's the problem with agreeing that their name/logo combination isn't acceptable? As @Danoff pointed out, you'd probably see an inherent problem if they were the Washington Blackskins and their logo was Uncle Remus...


It's not beholden upon them to change it and there should be no legal forcing of the issue. They should probably just change it - not least because it's in their own best interest to do so.

 

[G.T.Ace]

So, you agree that:

Washington Redskins' name and logo make it clear that "Redskins" refers to Native Americans.
It's not acceptable to refer to Native Americans as "Redskins".

So what's the problem with agreeing that their name/logo combination isn't acceptable? As @Danoff pointed out, you'd probably see an inherent problem if they were the Washington Blackskins and their logo was Uncle Remus...


It's not beholden upon them to change it and there should be no legal forcing of the issue. They should probably just change it - not least because it's in their own best interest to do so.

My thoughts exactly.

 

[Liquid]

Exactly. They shouldn't be forced by the Feds to change it, but that doesn't mean that they shouldn't change it anyway.

 

[Pupik]

Exactly. They shouldn't be forced by the Feds to change it, but that doesn't mean that they shouldn't change it anyway.

They aren't forced by Federal authority to change it, but the trademark was not renewed. By declining to permit a trademark on a "deemed offensive" name, it means the owners and league are less likely to profit from the usage of the name Redskins. In a way, the team name is now open source.

The pressure will really come from team sponsors and the stadium owners. The diehard fans won't like the change, but they'll get over it; but sponsors will probably sway whichever direction the fans take.

 

[Omnis]

It's not like they're moving the team...the Redskins are clearly named after American Indians, and having that name in the nation's capital is possibly what makes it more offensive. Time for a team name change that's sorely overdue.

I wouldn't wear these hat(e)s either:

I would wear a New York Jews hat. But the little vent holes should look like bagels, and the brim should being pink and striped like lox.

 

[Pupik]

I would wear a New York Jews hat. But the little vent holes should look like bagels, and the brim should being pink and striped like lox.

I guess in your version of baseball, the Anti-Defamation League squares off against the Arab League every October.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Not everyone can have nuclear weapons, so sporting rivalries are a good way of resolving disputes - after all, figuring out who is right and who is wrong based on whoever is best at hitting a ball around a diamond makes about as much sense as figuring it out based on who has more money to throw at splitting the atom.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Not everyone can have nuclear weapons, so sporting rivalries are a good way of resolving disputes - after all, figuring out who is right and who is wrong based on whoever is best at hitting a ball around a diamond makes about as much sense as figuring it out based on who has more money to throw at splitting the atom.

You should see Association Football in Britain; it's a a feet-only version of proper football with no body contact. Players cost £10,000,000,000 on average and run 300m before they fall over and are never seen again. I read that Chelsea United (a team from Liverpool or somewhere) could have built 6 academies for the cost of buying and training their starlets. Obviously that would be pointless as none of them can read.

 

[Omnis]

I guess in your version of baseball, the Anti-Defamation League squares off against the Arab League every October.

That works. And my starting pitcher's nickname is "Lightning". And the team slugger is "Pastrami Rami"

 

[Pupik]

That works. And my starting pitcher's nickname is "Lightning". And the team slugger is "Pastrami Rami"

I see we have a conflict of interest here: "Lightning" drives in the Sacred Heart Auto League.

 

[Omnis]

No, this is Jewish Lightning. He throws fire.

 

[Ken]

I am watching "Around the Horn" on ESPN and they are discussing the FCC thinking of banning the team name in broadcasting.

 

[GTPorsche]

FCC can do that since they determine the guidelines for what is aired on TV and radio.

 

[LeMansAid]

Do you think it's acceptable to refer to Native Americans as "Redskins"?

It should be, and we'd be better for it.

I wonder if I'll be crushed by the powers that be if use the word........... nip. Short for Nippon, a name that they came up with themselves. Explain to me why, if you think that's racist.

What about Paki? That caused a furore when Prince Harry dared shorten Pakistani when talking about his Pakistani friend. What about Poms, Aussies, Kiwis, Yanks? If people can get bent out of shape over Paki (which as far as I know has no historical significance), on and on we'll go. Fanta? Porsche? Better make sure no-one makes money from those names, as they may well represent despicable things to some.

South Park attempted to teach us what true non-racism looks like, a long time ago, with their flag episode. Now, we just need to live it.

ps. Redskins is a stupid name for a sports team.

 

[Famine]

Explain to me why, if you think that's racist.

Who said anything about racism?

 

[LeMansAid]

Ok, we can make this that bit more drawn out. Replace with "Do you think that it's unacceptable?". @Danoff can choose to respond to it in it's racist form though.

Not that a simple "Not racist, but......" or ".........., and yes, also racist" wouldn't have done the trick as well.

 

[polysmut]

I came to read this thread just now when I'm maybe too drunk too explain this properly.

The idea that something can only be offensive to the individuals described is simply false.

I'm offended that the human race separates itself into racial groups. I feel that we are all one as people, that we can & should educate future generations about everything we can, including the unnecessary negativity that comes from racism. If it's the case that only certain people are allowed to be offended by racism then these lessons will never be passed on.

 

[ledhed]

Political correctness is tyranny.
Its evil trying to disguise itself under a mantle of " good intentions ".
The word and language police are still police .

 

[Scaff]

Political correctness is tyranny.
Its evil trying to disguise itself under a mantle of " good intentions ".
The word and language police are still police .

Being opposed to racism is political correctness?

Is my dislike and discomfort at my children being told to "**** off home Pakis" simply political correctness?

No its racial abuse, and inaccurate racial abuse at that (they are half Indian not Pakistani), given that if a local football team called itself the Purton Pakis, would I simply be being politically correct in finding that racist?

 

[LeMansAid]

I'm offended that the human race separates itself into racial groups.

It was done for us. Fact is, people from different origins look different. We're not better off avoiding saying black, white, brown, red, yellow: we're better off thinking that it's inconsequential to say it. An arbitrary and insignificant point of difference.

Is my dislike and discomfort at my children being told to "**** off home Pakis" simply political correctness?

No its racial abuse, and inaccurate racial abuse at that (they are half Indian not Pakistani), given that if a local football team called itself the Purton Pakis, would I simply be being politically correct in finding that racist?

As far as I know they're genetically identical (which I'm sure is exactly what the abuser was considering at the time).

To the serious bit - You're talking about potentially two totally different situations though. Do you agree that Paki can be used both as a pejorative and as a term of endearment?

Say there's a fight in a pub between two guys over an alleged grope of a girlfriend. One guy calls the other a "fat ****", the other calls the first a "******* Paki", while an onlooker says "Pakis can't fight". Only the last of those comments is likely to be racist, as it's the only one that discriminates on the basis of it (I say likely because there's still the chance of sarcasm being on the table). If he's fat he's fat, if he's Paki he's Paki (or possibly half Indian). The asterisks are the abusive bits, while "fat" and "Paki" are probably whatever came to mind as an embellishment to the asterisk insult. It could have just as easily been "stretch", "short stack", "mono brow", or "pimple head". Even further, the asterisks aren't exclusively insulting, because people use that kind of irreverence lovingly at times as well.

So, your first example does indeed appear to be racist, your second needs far more hypothetical information to know what's going on with it.

 

[Scaff]

It was done for us. Fact is, people from different origins look different. We're not better off avoiding saying black, white, brown, red, yellow: we're better off thinking that it's inconsequential to say it. An arbitrary and insignificant point of difference.




As far as I know they're genetically identical (which I'm sure is exactly what the abuser was considering at the time).

To the serious bit - You're talking about potentially two totally different situations though. Do you agree that Paki can be used both as a pejorative and as a term of endearment?

Say there's a fight in a pub between two guys over an alleged grope of a girlfriend. One guy calls the other a "fat ****", the other calls the first a "******* Paki", while an onlooker says "Pakis can't fight". Only the last of those comments is likely to be racist, as it's the only one that discriminates on the basis of it (I say likely because there's still the chance of sarcasm being on the table). If he's fat he's fat, if he's Paki he's Paki (or possibly half Indian). The asterisks are the abusive bits, while "fat" and "Paki" are probably whatever came to mind as an embellishment to the asterisk insult. It could have just as easily been "stretch", "short stack", "mono brow", or "pimple head". Even further, the asterisks aren't exclusively insulting, because people use that kind of irreverence lovingly at times as well.

So, your first example does indeed appear to be racist, your second needs far more hypothetical information to know what's going on with it.

I have never, and I'm 43, heard it used in anything but a derogatory manner.

Yes the level of derision behind it may vary, but to use it as a term of Bonn homme in any way. Never come across it at all.

It's not a reclaimed word in any form and certainly wouldn't be among Indians in particular.

However feel free to come over and give it a go, the results could well be interesting to observe.