Washington Football Franchise team name discussion

[NorthSideSox72]

That's gotta be a typo in the article.

Copied and pasted from their own press release.

 

That's some epically bad review work there.

 

 

 

[Quin]

From Wikipedia... the controversy dates back to at least 1971.

 

"Although often assumed to be a debate of recent origins, the local Washington, DC newspapers have published news items on the controversy many times since at least 1971, all in response to Native American individuals or organizations asking for the name to be changed.[48]

 

National protests began in 1988, after the team's Super Bowl XXII victory. Numerous Native Americans wrote letters to Redskins owner Jack Kent Cooke encouraging him to change the name. Others boycotted Redskins products and protested. Many of these events were led by Suzan Shown Harjo of the National Congress of American Indians (NCAI). Cooke responded in an interview, stating, "There's not a single, solitary jot, tittle, whit chance in the world that the Redskins will adopt a new nickname."

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Re...ame_controversy

 

Wikipedia so it doesn't count.

[Jenksismyhero]

"we've been using this racial slur for decades and you're only just NOW complaining?!" isn't exactly a good defense.

 

It's not really a defense, it's a criticism of white people full of guilt who latched onto the story this summer when they hadn't thought twice about it before. I'm sure you yourself were championing this cause back in the 90's and 00's and have refused to utter the word since, right?

[Balta1701]

It's not really a defense, it's a criticism of white people full of guilt who latched onto the story this summer when they hadn't thought twice about it before. I'm sure you yourself were championing this cause back in the 90's and 00's and have refused to utter the word since, right?

This doesn't make it ok.

[Jenksismyhero]

The majority of white/Euro people wouldn't have thought twice about calling someone the N word in 1932 either. It was an insult then too. We have just evolved as a society, and are in a place where many people don't find these things to be OK.

 

It isn't that the nature of the word has changed. It's that we are evolving as a society in our reaction to hurling insults.

 

But no one does this, and hasn't for a very, very long time. That's why this case is different. Again, let's poll 100 people and how many do we honestly think relate Washington Redskins to a football team or an actual person/tribe?

 

[StrangeSox]

While you seem to believe it is simple, it is not. This isn't something that can be put into a cute little box, so you can apply an easily understood label to it, and skip along your merry way having avenged the unfortunate souls, while not having achieved anything of substance.

 

So you can keep trying to lay the trap to win the internet and drop a boulder on my head, but you are wasting your time. The real discussion is there is you want to have it. If you want to keep raging, have at it.

 

I'm not sure why you're seeing so much "rage." That seems more like another evasion tool from ever bothering to explain yourself. How will the continued use of a racial slur as the name of multi-million dollar franchise further the cause of AmerIndians? How will it take the power out of the word to have an overhwleming non-AmerIndian fanbase using a racial slur that AmerIndians find offensive?

[Jenksismyhero]

This doesn't make it ok.

 

When the basis of changing the name is how offensive it is, and the people claiming it's offensive happen to be mostly white people in need of a cause, I think it puts the issue in proper perspective. It's another rush to be outraged and change something that really doesn't need to be changed and won't cause a bit of difference in how the world operates.

[Balta1701]

When the basis of changing the name is how offensive it is, and the people claiming it's offensive happen to be mostly white people in need of a cause, I think it puts the issue in proper perspective. It's another rush to be outraged and change something that really doesn't need to be changed and won't cause a bit of difference in how the world operates.

Neither will changing it to something that isn't a racial slur. "It doesn't need to be changed" is not a defense when there are people who clearly believe it should be.

[StrangeSox]

But no one does this, and hasn't for a very, very long time. That's why this case is different. Again, let's poll 100 people and how many do we honestly think relate Washington Redskins to a football team or an actual person/tribe?

why should we care whether 100 non-AmerIndians find a racial slur targeted at AmerIndians to be an offensive racial slur?

[NorthSideSox72]

But no one does this, and hasn't for a very, very long time. That's why this case is different. Again, let's poll 100 people and how many do we honestly think relate Washington Redskins to a football team or an actual person/tribe?

Um, it's the name of an NFL team. It is likely done millions of times a day.

 

And as for polling, SS showed you a few - that all showed a majority found it offensive. There was the one exception, which you posted, but again that was a laughably bad survey question (which you seemed to agree with given the fact that you assumed it was a typo).

 

[StrangeSox]

When the basis of changing the name is how offensive it is, and the people claiming it's offensive happen to be mostly white people in need of a cause, I think it puts the issue in proper perspective. It's another rush to be outraged and change something that really doesn't need to be changed and won't cause a bit of difference in how the world operates.

this can be flipped around pretty easily to point out how many non-AmerIndians are quick to get outraged at the idea of the name being changed.

[StrangeSox]

It isn't that the nature of the word has changed. It's that we are evolving as a society in our reaction to hurling insults.

for some reason I'll never understand, some people think this is a bad thing.

[southsider2k5]

Yet everyone here is using the term "Indians" like it has never had any negative connotations attached to, or that it wasn't the terms assigned by the colonists. But yet no one has any idea of what I am talking about when I mention the power assigned to words.

[Jenksismyhero]

Neither will changing it to something that isn't a racial slur. "It doesn't need to be changed" is not a defense when there are people who clearly believe it should be.

 

Count me on the side that hates censorship of all speech, not just what i think is good speech. Forcing the change of language to satisfy a minority isn't good policy in general, especially when no one uses that offensive language as a slur anymore.

 

 

[Jenksismyhero]

why should we care whether 100 non-AmerIndians find a racial slur targeted at AmerIndians to be an offensive racial slur?

 

Because if people don't interpret the word as being directed or referring to a certain group, how can it be a slur? I'm sure we can find examples of hundreds of words that USED to be bad, but no one recognizes them that way anymore, and we use them everyday.

Edited August 20, 2014 by Jenksismybitch

[NorthSideSox72]

Yet everyone here is using the term "Indians" like it has never had any negative connotations attached to, or that it wasn't the terms assigned by the colonists. But yet no one has any idea of what I am talking about when I mention the power assigned to words.

Indians is a proper and scientific name for a group of people (though of course it is sort of hilariously inaccurate). In fact Native Americans was added later as an attempt to be more sensitive (or PC if you like), but then those people themselves in many cases felt that was just as inaccurate as Indians. That's why American Indians is the way you now, again, often see the groups termed in academic papers and textbooks. It was never an insult, unless terms like "white" or "Irish" or "people" are also insults.

 

Indian and Redskin are in no way interchangeable in their tone - only in the people they point at.

 

 

[Jenksismyhero]

Um, it's the name of an NFL team. It is likely done millions of times a day.

 

And as for polling, SS showed you a few - that all showed a majority found it offensive. There was the one exception, which you posted, but again that was a laughably bad survey question (which you seemed to agree with given the fact that you assumed it was a typo).

 

Come on. Saying Redskins in 2014 means you are referring to an NFL team, not an American Indian. You know that's true. No one is saying "yeah we got a real issue with those Redskins out west. Really gotta do something about that Redskins problem."

 

 

[StrangeSox]

I'm going to need a citation that "Indian" was used as a racial slur. That it was a mistaken assignment by colonists doesn't make it a racial slur. More importantly, it's the self-identification preferred by a majority of American Indians.

 

And no, I don't think anyone really knows what you're talking about, because you haven't gotten around to explaining how a non-AmerIndian group continuing to use a racial slur against the wishes of a majority of AmerIndians will somehow make it not a racial slur at some undefined point in the future. Nor have you explained why it's okay to continue offending AmerIndians today with the use of the racial slur and why that's preferable to simply no longer using the racial slur.

[StrangeSox]

Count me on the side that hates censorship of all speech, not just what i think is good speech. Forcing the change of language to satisfy a minority isn't good policy in general, especially when no one uses that offensive language as a slur anymore.

Why is it so important to you that it remain publicly acceptable to continue using racial slurs? What other racial slurs that have been been subjected to "censorship" by no longer being acceptable socially do you wish you could still use?

[StrangeSox]

Because if people don't interpret the word as being directed or referring to a certain group, how can it be a slur? I'm sure we can find examples of hundreds of words that USED to be bad, but no one recognizes them that way anymore, and we use them everyday.

How on earth can you separate the name of the NFL team from AmerIndians? Their logo is an AmerIndian.

 

Anyway, that doesn't change what the group that's the target of the slur feels about the slur.

[StrangeSox]

Come on. Saying Redskins in 2014 means you are referring to an NFL team, not an American Indian. You know that's true. No one is saying "yeah we got a real issue with those Redskins out west. Really gotta do something about that Redskins problem."

An NFL team that's named after a racial slur and has an AmerIndian as its logo.

[StrangeSox]

Indians is a proper and scientific name for a group of people (though of course it is sort of hilariously inaccurate). In fact Native Americans was added later as an attempt to be more sensitive (or PC if you like), but then those people themselves in many cases felt that was just as inaccurate as Indians. That's why American Indians is the way you now, again, often see the groups termed in academic papers and textbooks. It was never an insult, unless terms like "white" or "Irish" or "people" are also insults.

 

Indian and Redskin are in no way interchangeable in their tone - only in the people they point at.

fun fact, the terminology/concept of "white people" or a "white race" originated in the late 16th century. A lot of our modern racial concepts weren't really formed until the slave trade was in its heyday and needed justification.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_people

[Jenksismyhero]

Why is it so important to you that it remain publicly acceptable to continue using racial slurs? What other racial slurs that have been been subjected to "censorship" by no longer being acceptable socially do you wish you could still use?

 

See above.

 

And it's not about "wishing" to use it. You've got a word that no longer means what it used to mean. It has an entirely different interpretation now.

 

 

[Jenksismyhero]

An NFL team that's named after a racial slur and has an AmerIndian as its logo.

 

Ok, but it's still the football team, not a person or group of people.

[Balta1701]

See above.

 

And it's not about "wishing" to use it. You've got a word that no longer means what it used to mean. It has an entirely different interpretation now.

Really no it doesn't. I mean, literally just read the word. "Red skins". This isn't like "Antidisestablishmentarianism" changing definitions subtly, it literally spells out for you what it means.