Washington Redskins Name Controversy

[ledhed]

Being civil and open minded , respectful of others , should be as I was taught by my parents a natural state .
So having thought and speech police deciding what is correct for social discourse is tyranny and often by bullying and often by a minority.
Its astonishing I made it to age 55 without having leet people tell me how I should talk to other people.
All I see with PC madness is de evolution and an excuse to avoid personal responsibility.

 

[Joel]

Being civil and open minded , respectful of others , should be as I was taught by my parents a natural state .
Its astonishing I made it to age 55 without having leet people tell me how I should talk to other people.
All I see with PC madness is de evolution and an excuse to avoid personal responsibility.

It's very easy to turn that kind of statement around.

Be respectful and decent to people, it seems like it should be simple and it's what I learned from my parents growing up. It's astonishing that at 20 years old I don't need people to tell me how to talk to other people respectfully instead of stubbornly holding on to antiquated and derogatory words for the sake of a sports team's "heritage" to use a name which bullies and disrespects a minority. All I see when people criticize this as "PC madness" is an excuse to avoid acting compassionately or change their ways.

Do you think it's OK to refer to Native Americans as redskins? Would you use that word in public? Why or why not?

So having thought and speech police deciding what is correct for social discourse is tyranny and often by bullying and often by a minority.

And the alternative is to not ever confront the majority with what their behaviours mean to minorities? If we're talking bullying and tyranny I don't know how anyone could possibly say that white people are being bullied by minorities. This argument hinges on the majority being OK with a sports team named after a slur for the past 80 years. And I'm supposed to believe that the suggestion of changing the name to something that isn't a slur is bullying? Somehow I don't think it's the minorities doing the bullying here.

In what universe is the general public asking that a private business and its ownership change its name tyranny? Nobody sensible is saying the government needs to be involved, and I'd be the first one to defend the right of the team's owner to keep the name of their team as is. That doesn't mean I can't have my own opinion on whether or not it's a good thing, or whether or not I think he should change it.

 

[LeMansAid]

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.

I'd already pointed to the Prince Harry home video usage. Have you not seen it, or did you manage to squeeze some derogatory nature out of it?

Particularly in it's plural version we hear it a lot when the Pakistan cricket team is in Australia, especially on tv. Thing about over-sensitivity is that where there was never a problem, one is created. I wouldn't be surprised if the benign use of Paki is soon consigned to history. Great success eh?

 

[Scaff]

I'd already pointed to the Prince Harry home video usage. Have you not seen it, or did you manage to squeeze some derogatory nature out of it?

Ah, so the use of casual racist terminology is acceptable.

To be honest I don't personally think that many members of the royal family have really been checked in this regard during their life.

Particularly in it's plural version we hear it a lot when the Pakistan cricket team is in Australia, especially on tv. Thing about over-sensitivity is that where there was never a problem, one is created.

Are you inferring that this terms started life as a non-offensive term and has been co-opted?

I wouldn't be surprised if the benign use of Paki is soon consigned to history. Great success eh?

As I have already said its a massively emotive word with little to no benign use at all (either now or historically in the UK at the very least).

Now I understand the point you are making, that offence can't be given, only taken, but please keep in mind that is a philosophical argument and not a set in stop rule.

I'm quite sure that I use terms with my friends in a humorous manner (one that would refer to a meeting next Tuesday in particular) that were I to start throwing it around in most circumstances would be considered offensive. As such context and circumstances should be taken into account, I strongly believe in the right to free speech, but I just as strongly believe in being held accountable for your actions.

 

[LeMansAid]

Ah, so the use of casual racist terminology is acceptable.

You'll need to explain to me how it's racist, and make sure you check the actual definition of racist first. Offensive? I don't think it was even that, but that's for the "Paki friend" to decide anyway. I have a friend named Brad that has a bad association with "Braddles", so I'd never call him that. Same as if I had a friend that didn't like Paki. I'm not interested in offending people, I'm interested in encouraging societal interactions where we're not constantly paranoid of stepping in the wrong direction. Some idiot even had the idea that a person in a Santa suit shouldn't be able to say "HO, HO, HO!!". The best form of defence is attack, actively make terms inoffensive and the offensive version gains no ground.

Are you inferring that this terms started life as a non-offensive term and has been co-opted?

As I have already said its a massively emotive word with little to no benign use at all (either now or historically in the UK at the very least).

Maybe that's the thing, I've barely heard it used in a negative way. That's maybe also why Australia is viewed as a country harbouring racism. I describe our approach as offensive acceptance over inoffensive tolerance, and I think it works best in the long run. The most powerful of those words needs to be acceptance. "Inoffensive" might be what's fair, but "acceptance" is what works.

Now I understand the point you are making, that offence can't be given, only taken, but please keep in mind that is a philosophical argument and not a set in stop rule.

I'm quite sure that I use terms with my friends in a humorous manner (one that would refer to a meeting next Tuesday in particular) that were I to start throwing it around in most circumstances would be considered offensive. As such context and circumstances should be taken into account, I strongly believe in the right to free speech, but I just as strongly believe in being held accountable for your actions.

Yes, yes, and yes, but we need to take yet one more step back and look at the even bigger picture of which way the tide is shifting. Would it be a victory if this site would interrupt yours and my posts and change Paki to ****? With us then on using "the p word" when describing what terms people sometimes use? Do you really think that would be a step forward?

Bare in mind that neither of us has so far typed it in anything other than a benign and onlooking way.

Depending on your answer to the above, what of the biggest, baddest, boogey man of them all then........ It starts with with n, ends with the same n, and apparently has no letters in between.

 

[Tornado]

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

I may be quite a bit younger than most of the people here, but I have literally never, not once, heard the word "Redskin" used in any context other than referring to the football team. Even the jokes about redskin potatoes I originally missed. I would actually be surprised, even among the people insisting it is inherently racist, if that didn't hold true for most people born in the past ~50 years or so.

Does that mean, similarly, that it cannot be considered by me in racist terms?

Ah, so the use of casual racist terminology is acceptable

That, as well as whether the terminology is actually racist in the context it is used to begin with, seems to be the call for the people the terminology is "targeted" at far more than the people you actually see at football games protesting it.
I'd say popular culture really only using "Redskins" in any capacity to refer to the professional football team (with the most deviation being paint by numbers attempts at satire over the issue) goes a long way towards saying that yes, it is; what with language being fluid for the times.


And again, casual usage of the N word is pretty damn socially acceptable, even more so in this country than anything above "god damn" level swearing and even though actual racist usage is still common (certainly moreso than "redskins"), though as a milquetoast white guy I can't even pretend to know the contexts that it is.

 

[Scaff]

You'll need to explain to me how it's racist, and make sure you check the actual definition of racist first. Offensive? I don't think it was even that, but that's for the "Paki friend" to decide anyway. I have a friend named Brad that has a bad association with "Braddles", so I'd never call him that. Same as if I had a friend that didn't like Paki. I'm not interested in offending people, I'm interested in encouraging societal interactions where we're not constantly paranoid of stepping in the wrong direction. Some idiot even had the idea that a person in a Santa suit shouldn't be able to say "HO, HO, HO!!". The best form of defence is attack, actively make terms inoffensive and the offensive version gains no ground.

In the UK its origin (and I have spoke to a lot of Pakistani, Indian and Bangladeshis about this) is a catch-all insult and term of derision for pretty much anyone from that area. Mainly from the start of larger waves on immigration from the late 1940's onward's.

Its historical context in the UK is one of insult and its use as a 'brotherly' term among Pakistanis is very, very limited; as such it would pretty much be irrelevant if you attempted to use it as a benign term or even as a term of endearment in the UK. A point that a member of the royal family should know well.

As such context and audience is critical. It may well have been normalized in terms of one group of white people talking to another, just as variations on the N word did in the US South. To the point that among this group the term is totally normalized, what tends to get forgotten is that term has not normalized within the group it 'targets' (for want of a better word) and as such is not seen as benign.

Maybe we will get to a point in the future when it can be seen as benign, but that is unlikely to happen when one group either ignores or attempts to down-play the effect it can have on the group that it targets.

 

[FoolKiller]

I think I have a solution we can all agree on. The name changes, but it becomes the Washington Politically Correct Elite. We'll just call them the Elite for short. See, it gets in a dig at those who want to try to force their name change while giving them a relatively cool sports nickname.

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

Sure on the over-the-air broadcasts, but not on cable-only broadcasts, of which there are two games every week, and every single sports news segment on ESPN and Fox Sports. There are more opportunities to say something offensive outside of the FCC's jurisdiction than within. That said, the FCC is, as usual with government, too late and useless here. The standards and practices (S&P) teams of most of the broadcasters have already taken care of this. Business moves about 100 times faster than government. The FCC will have to have hearings, meetings, committee discussions, public response periods and God only knows what else before they make this move. The broadcasters did it in one meeting.

But, I believe in free speech in all forms. Government cannot force this change in the US. This will come down to public opinion and only public opinion. And that does not seem to waiver in football for any reason. How many scandals have the NFL endured and continued to bring in tons of money?

Ultimately, the league and the media have ruined the name for the team. Whether you view it as racist or not, the term "Redskins" will slowly cease to be used. It nearly has. As the media just calls them Washington more and more so will the audiences. It's just how it works in media's effect on sociology. Broadcast media affects the vocabulary of the people. If I were the Redskins I would try to save face at this point by holding out until the issue dies down (and it will) and would then change it or the logo. Do it quietly without a lot of media attention. No press conference. Just have the team run out on the field with a new logo on their helmets.

I even have a good idea for something. Currently the team uses red with yellow and white outlines. Switch the white to black, and make sure the yellow always touches the red. Red touches yellow kills a fellow.

There you go, a deadly, red-skinned predator with yellow outlining the red. One of the deadliest snakes in North America.

 

[Omnis]

Red touches yellow, kills a fellow. Red touches black, Robert Griffin breaks his back.

 

[GTPorsche]

Two games on cable only? It's just MNF now that CBS is showing the Thursday Night games this season.

 

[FoolKiller]

Two games on cable only? It's just MNF now that CBS is showing the Thursday Night games this season.

Does NFL Network not have one any longer. I cut cable two years ago.

 

[GTPorsche]

Does NFL Network not have one any longer. I cut cable two years ago.

It's a CBS/NFL Network partnership. Broadcast logos still have NFL Network, but the game is broadcast on CBS.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Red touches yellow kills a fellow.

I remember some naturalist program with Rolf Harris excitedly explaining "Red an' yeller? Kill a fella!". Looking back he might have been trying to warn us about Jimmy Saville.

 

[FoolKiller]

It's a CBS/NFL Network partnership. Broadcast logos still have NFL Network, but the game is broadcast on CBS.

Well, I stand corrected. Thanks.

Yeah, but still, all sports highlights shows are almost all on cable and I guarantee you with the multiple airings of Sportscenter there are far more chances for Redskins to be said outside the FCC's jurisdiction than within.

 

[GTPorsche]

Most likely so.

They should just rename the team to the Washington Colonials. It's a better, and more historical name than the current one and reflects on the history of the nation. Although that probably conflicts with the Patriots in a way. Edit: Maybe even change from their current colors to a trio of faded red/white/blue instead.

Hopefully they do a better name change compared to the Washington Bullets changing to Washington Wizards to move away from the unintentional connection to the high crime rate in Washington at the time.

 

[Omnis]

By the way, I thought the saying was "Red and yellow is a fellow. Red and black: watch out, Jack!"

That is what the Seminoles taught us on a field trip, anyway. Maybe they just wanted to kill us white kids.

 

[FoolKiller]

By the way, I thought the saying was "Red and yellow is a fellow. Red and black: watch out, Jack!"

That is what the Seminoles taught us on a field trip, anyway. Maybe they just wanted to kill us white kids.

There are a few coral snakes that are differently patterned, but yellow kills a fellow applies to all known species in NA.

 

[Pupik]

By the way, I thought the saying was "Red and yellow is a fellow. Red and black: watch out, Jack!"

That is what the Seminoles taught us on a field trip, anyway. Maybe they just wanted to kill us white kids.

I'd always heard "Red and yellow: not your fellow", but I tend to move away when I see either variety of red snake in the wild.

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/p...I9ZiKFFovzL2Bv6V55BmBh3frKV5saqI=w512-h512-nc

 

[Omnis]

Not a fellow sounds familiar too. But what is the Jack part?

 

[FoolKiller]

Not a fellow sounds familiar too. But what is the Jack part?

There are multiple variations.

http://www.wikihow.com/Tell-the-Difference-Between-a-King-Snake-and-a-Coral-Snake

 

[LeMansAid]

Maybe we will get to a point in the future when it can be seen as benign, but that is unlikely to happen when one group either ignores or attempts to down-play the effect it can have on the group that it targets.

Hmmm, see here's Samuel L. Jackson trying to get a reporter to speak frankly, and say ******.



That, by the way, was as close as I could get to the real word without it being replaced completely with asterisks. I've seen GTP moderators use "Christ" as an exclamation, you yourself wrote "Paki" without any censoring. Doing tests, other terms commonly used in a derogatory way, but having no other meaning are not auto-censored on GTP. What a shame that black Americans aren't given enough respect to allow for the historical and technical use of the word.

Maybe in the future? Maybe, but down-playing is exactly what needs to happen, on both sides however. The biggest problem we have might be third-parties "up-playing" issues. I get the feeling that Samuel L., for one, may agree with me.

I'll ask again - Would it be a step forward if it was not possible on GTP to use "Paki" in the way we have used it so far in this thread? ie. Using the term technically, and in a civil conversation. Surely whatever the rationale though, it should be applied equitably.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Hmmm, see here's Samuel L. Jackson trying to get a reporter to speak frankly, and say n*gger.
I'll ask again - Would it be a step forward if it was not possible on GTP to use "Paki" in the way we have used it so far in this thread? ie. Using the term technically, and in a civil conversation. Surely whatever the rationale though, it should be applied equitably.

@Jordan would have to answer that but I agree it's very odd that ****** is censored when paki isn't, there's no difference in the offensiveness of the word (UK at least).

 

[Famine]

That, by the way, was as close as I could get to the real word without it being replaced completely with asterisks. I've seen GTP moderators use "Christ" as an exclamation, you yourself wrote "Paki" without any censoring. Doing tests, other terms commonly used in a derogatory way, but having no other meaning are not auto-censored on GTP. What a shame that black Americans aren't given enough respect to allow for the historical and technical use of the word.

What a shame you give our forum so little respect as to deliberately try to get around functions put in place by the site owner.

Feel free to have a discussion with @Jordan about how little respect you think he has for black Americans.

 

[FoolKiller]

I had to look it up to even know what it meant.

Of course, blocking it out would cause an issue with this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paki,_California

and this

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pākī

 

[TenEightyOne]

I had to look it up to even know what it meant.

Of course, blocking it out would cause an issue with this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paki,_California

and this

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pākī

Definitely a regional thing then. In the UK it would be as criminal to abuse an asian with the term "Paki" as it would to abuse an African with the term "******".

Racism Red Card

 

[LeMansAid]

What a shame you give our forum so little respect as to deliberately try to get around functions put in place by the site owner.

Feel free to have a discussion with @Jordan about how little respect you think he has for black Americans.

I was just trying use it in the same way as both @Scaff and I had used ****. I was not trying to be offensive or sly, just have a frank conversation.

There does appear to be a mismatch in one direction or the other though.

 

[FoolKiller]

Definitely a regional thing then. In the UK it would be as criminal to abuse an asian with the term "Paki" as it would to abuse an African with the term "******".

Racism Red Card

Only in very few instances can any speech be criminalized here. Hate speech is not one of those instances.


EDIT: Looking at the Racism Red Card, banter is not cool, huh? Boy, you should see us when my friend Ernest is around. He love to joke about getting a kidney transplant from a white guy.

 

[LeMansAid]

@Famine I find it interesting that you walked right past the N word (three letter version), the P word, and of course the R word that's in the very title of this thread.
@Scaff I find it interesting that you walked right past the N word (three letter version), the R word, and actually used the P word.
@Jordan What do you think of this?

I'm not a swearer, but if I was quoting lyrics to a song with swear words, I'd use the swear words. Similarly, I tend not to use any racially/ethnically sensitive terms unless I'm quoting, or discussing the word itself. That's me out in the big, wide world, and how I'd write in here if given the choice. @Jordan can of course choose to run this site any way he pleases, but as a fan I would at least hope for consistency amid the level of censorship adopted.

@Famine It was maybe a few months ago that a young member cautiously talked about "a word starting with r". You boldly responded with "it's ok to say rape". This for me is an example of how well-intentioned people are infused with confusion when people are judged increasingly more on what words or terms they use, rather than what they are actually saying. Having experience with rape, I find it can be quite an affronting word, and I'm sure that it would be the same for many people out there. I view it as very much on the same level as the racial/ethnic terms in the power it potentially wields. For the record, I would not want the word monitored in any way other than how I assume it is now. I do wonder how far the confusion will go over time, and if we'll get more and more "bad" words being removed from vocabularies, out of fear.

I'm quite sure that in the past, content directed at me on GTP has been removed for "my protection" before I'd read it. Now, chances are that it happened due to something being against the rules or "the rules", but I still find it insulting. The idea that I can't have the chance to fight my own battles, and that I've been sheltered from a big, bad meanie is really offensive to me. That's what I mean when I talk about respect for black Americans. That suggesting they need to be shielded from the ugly world out there is disrespectful. The content removed? In one case I suspect it was a response to me alluding to my willingness to suicide, in the Global Warming thread. It irks me to this day that I wasn't given the chance to "look the person in the eye" and respond. The net result is a feeling of being disrespected.

I don't expect it to be too difficult to stay on the good side of the GTP laws, I must say that I'm intrigued by the inconsistencies of the laws and it's policers though.

 

[FoolKiller]

@Famine I find it interesting that you walked right past the N word (three letter version),

The what? I can only think of one N-word and know of no three letter version.

the P word,

While I can't speak for the staff, I grew up in the same region as Jordan and I had no clue what the word was.

and of course the R word that's in the very title of this thread.

You mean the official name of a sports franchise in the US? Yes, banning a word widely available on shirts, hats, jerseys, balls, etc. would make total sense, especially since it's use in this context only became a controversy recently and that controversy is the point of this thread.

I'm not a swearer, but if I was quoting lyrics to a song with swear words, I'd use the swear words. Similarly, I tend not to use any racially/ethnically sensitive terms unless I'm quoting, or discussing the word itself. That's me out in the big, wide world, and how I'd write in here if given the choice. @Jordan can of course choose to run this site any way he pleases, but as a fan I would at least hope for consistency amid the level of censorship adopted.

While it isn't exact, because each channel has different rules, the censorship here appears to be the same words that will be bleeped out on American cable TV. The others most likely won't.

That's what I mean when I talk about respect for black Americans. That suggesting they need to be shielded from the ugly world out there is disrespectful. The content removed? In one case I suspect it was a response to me alluding to my willingness to suicide, in the Global Warming thread. It irks me to this day that I wasn't given the chance to "look the person in the eye" and respond. The net result is a feeling of being disrespected.

You know it is likely that more goes into these decisions than just if you might be offended, correct? You will see the rules also protect the site from liability. We live in a world run by lawyers and accountants, as seen by many US employees being required to attend annual harassment and sensitivity classes by their employer, despite no complaints existing.

I don't expect it to be too difficult to stay on the good side of the GTP laws, I must say that I'm intrigued by the inconsistencies of the laws and it's policers though.

If we blocked something every time someone cried that it was offensive we would not be allowed to say many things and the opinions forum would be shut down. I see at work on our employee wellness committee all the time. We discuss new policies and spend the next year talking about how it might be found offensive or leave someone else out. By the time we are done, something intended to help the employees have healthier choices has no teeth and no effectiveness. Heck, I'm there to represent the voice of people with disabilities. Every idea gets run by me and if it is something people with disabilities can participate in. It is funny to watch them try to find a way to encourage walking the stairs without upsetting people who can't.

 

[LeMansAid]

The what? I can only think of one N-word and know of no three letter version.

Hint - @a6m5 will likely know all about it.

While I can't speak for the staff, I grew up in the same region as Jordan and I had no clue what the word was.

It was @Scaff and @Famine that walked on by though.

You mean the official name of a sports franchise in the US? Yes, banning a word widely available on shirts, hats, jerseys, balls, etc. would make total sense, especially since it's use in this context only became a controversy recently and that controversy is the point of this thread.

Plenty of words can't be banned, but can be moderated.

You know it is likely that more goes into these decisions than just if you might be offended, correct?

Now, chances are that it happened due to something being against the rules or "the rules"

If we blocked something every time someone cried that it was offensive we would not be allowed to say many things and the opinions forum would be shut down. I see at work on our employee wellness committee all the time. We discuss new policies and spend the next year talking about how it might be found offensive or leave someone else out. By the time we are done, something intended to help the employees have healthier choices has no teeth and no effectiveness. Heck, I'm there to represent the voice of people with disabilities. Every idea gets run by me and if it is something people with disabilities can participate in. It is funny to watch them try to find a way to encourage walking the stairs without upsetting people who can't.

I think you are missing that we probably have similar feelings on the matter. I'm all for the "balls out" approach, and think it's the healthiest in the long run. What I'm seeing in this thread is a cherry picking of what's au fait and what not. A rather crooked line drawn in the sand.

I say - draw it here or draw it there, but draw it straight.