WP:Drop ‘Redskins’ name? Time to take a stand. (By Robert McCartney)

[Going Commando]

Nobody is arguing that it isn't viewed as offensive.

Plenty of people in the thread were arguing that it isn't offensive.

[elkabong82]

I think you missed his point.

We don't openly identify people and refer to them by the color of their skin. Any people. Because it's bad. We're not really supposed to identify or delineate people based on the color of their skin. Our country has a long, awful history of doing that, so we're supposed to make an effort not to do it any more.

I'm reading a lot of specious arguments based mostly on emotion in this thread. I think the people who get so heated and dogmatic in defense of the name sense that there is something wrong about the name deep down. I think they like the status quo though, they like the tradition, and they don't like thinking or hearing that the thing they love is bad, they don't like racism in the abstract and they don't like the idea that they love something that's got a racist name.

I think the name will change eventually though, and I don't think it's going to be that big a deal. It's not worth the trouble IMO and I think keeping the name is actually bad for the brand in the rest of the world. It makes us look somewhat pariah.

I think you couldn't be more wrong on this and are basing your thoughts solely off an assumption that benefits your POV.

I have said in this thread, and others agreed, that if it was clear that the majority of NA folk thought the redskin term was derogatory that we would all, or most of us anyway, support a name change and that in all likelihood the name would have already been changed.

I think deep down people who aren't NA and claim the term is offensive due so out of misplaced guilt and fear from the PC crowd as being labeled racist; either that or they too only loom at the issue surface deep and see "skin" and assume it is racist.

[The Evil Genius]

I think you couldn't be more wrong on this and are basing your thoughts solely off an assumption that benefits your POV.

I have said in this thread, and others agreed, that if it was clear that the majority of NA folk thought the redskin term was derogatory that we would all, or most of us anyway, support a name change and that in all likelihood the name would have already been changed.

I disagree. I think most people know the word Redskins is an offensive name and yet they will continue to defend it's usage.

[Larry]

Nobody is arguing that it isn't viewed as offensive.

I am. And 90% of Native Americans agree with me.

It can be used offensively.

So can the word "boy". But, the non-offensive, common usage, of the word "boy" isn't a proper name. So the dictionary is allowed to list the non-offensive definition. (And, I certainly assume, lists the non-offensive definition first, because that's the way it's used, almost all of the time.)

[elkabong82]

Plenty of people in the thread were arguing that it isn't offensive.

You missed a word in my post: "viewed." We all acknowledge that it is viewed by some as offensive, and we are arguing that such a view is incorrect.

People, including me, are arguing that it isn't offensive, and we acknowledge while doing so that there are others who VIEW the term as offensive.

Does that clear it up for you?

LARRY: "viewed," as in, some VIEW it as offensive. If you've been reading through this thread then you know we are on the same side on this issue.

Take the time to read and fully understand a post people

[Predicto]

I was a history major in college and teach history now. How do you think he earned the name "Buffalo" Bill? He got that name before he was ever a showman. Again, he worked for the Union Pacific RR Co. which as a history buff you should know laid track all across America (hence the company name), and Bill worked for them killing buffalo all across America. Again, Bill also led lots of folk on buffalo hunting trips. He made some tall tales, as did a lot of people in those days, He's synonymous with killing buffalo and Native Americans. You're claim that he had "little to nothing to do" with killing buffalo is patently false.

Funny how you claim Bill didn't kill many buffalo, yet his nickname was earned for doing just that. So I guess you think it's unfair that he is misconstrued as a buffalo killer, sort of like how some are telling you the name Redskin has been misconstrued.

Fine. I suspect we are just talking past one another. We both know exactly who Bill Cody was. Like I said, I have read his biography. I don't think it is unfair to think of him as a bison killer, because he did do that and was famous for it. He was also a blowhard who exaggerated everything he did. My main point was that Cody was just a symptom of the demise of the open plains and the bison who roamed there. He was not the cause. The cause was millions and millions of homesteaders. But its all a big derail.

But your argument was that Redskin has become racist. Well, Buffalo Bill has become synonymous with killing buffalo and he is one of the most famous representatives of that era and those doings, so, per your own argument, because it is viewed that way now, then it is so.

Fine. I'm still not buying the underlying argument that you can equate the two team names in any legitimate way.

---------- Post added February-7th-2013 at 04:39 PM ----------

I think you missed his point.

We don't openly identify people and refer to them by the color of their skin. Any people. Because it's bad. We're not really supposed to identify or delineate people based on the color of their skin. Our country has a long, awful history of doing that, so we're supposed to make an effort not to do it any more.

I'm reading a lot of specious arguments based mostly on emotion in this thread. I think the people who get so heated and dogmatic in defense of the name sense that there is something wrong about the name deep down. I think they like the status quo though, they like the tradition, and they don't like thinking or hearing that the thing they love is bad, they don't like racism in the abstract and they don't like the idea that they love something that's got a racist name.

I think the name will change eventually though, and I don't think it's going to be that big a deal. It's not worth the trouble IMO and I think keeping the name is actually bad for the brand in the rest of the world. It makes us look somewhat pariah.

Yep. agreed on every word. Especially the second paragraph. None of us are racists, so it is important to us to deny that the team we love so much has an... awkward nickname.

[Larry]

I disagree. I think most people know the word Redskins is an offensive name and yet they will continue to defend it's usage.

Your theory of why 90% of Native Americans lied on a public opinion poll, and "knew that the word Redskins is an offensive name, and yet they defended it's usage" is . . . ?

They're all fans of the racially offensive team?

They should have called me. I'm Native American, and I would have lied, too.

[elkabong82]

I disagree. I think most people know the word Redskins is an offensive name and yet they will continue to defend it's usage.

I think you should read through the thread and address arguments made by both sides instead of just saying "I disagree." I'm not going to waste my time reasserting my arguments and others' as to why it isn't offensive. You can do that by reading through the thread and then address the specifics.

But who is better to judge the offensiveness? You, or the majority of Native Americans who don't believe the name is offensive?

[Predicto]

Nobody is arguing that it isn't viewed as offensive. Nice try. I said it was subjective based on cultural views. You sure are good at ignoring my actual arguments in favor of strawmen in this thread.

Again, the PC crowd considers it offensive because of the word "skin."

Who is right? Dictionaries on a cultural term who once had it down that the n word was acceptable for blacks and also meant ignorant, or the majority of NA folk in polls who say redskin is not an offensive term?

Maybe my actual argument against dictionaries with cultural terms will sink in this time.

I understand your argument. I just don't think it matters.

The world we live in is what it is. "Redskin" is now viewed as a slur whether we like it or not. All the dictionaries reflect that.

We can fight hard for our god-given right to keep using a word that is generally considered a slur by society because we don't intend it as a slur, but I really don't think it's worth doing so. :whoknows:

---------- Post added February-7th-2013 at 04:46 PM ----------

Why did you have to put the phrase "with reference to Native Americans" in your sentance?

Could it perhaps be because your sentence boils down to "when used in an offensive manner which nobody uses any more, then I'm right"?

The hair gets thinner.

I used the phrase "with reference to black people" because the word "colored" is perfectly acceptable when used in reference to, say, easter eggs. The word "redskin" is perfectly acceptable when used in reference to peanuts. I thought it was pretty obvious.

To try to claim that the word "Redskin" has not bearing on Native Americans when used with reference to a football team that has a Native American logo and a fight song that refers to Native Americans seems to be a bit specious.

[elkabong82]

Fine. I suspect we are just talking past one another. We both know exactly who Bill Cody was. Like I said, I have read his biography. I don't think it is unfair to think of him as a bison killer, because he did do that and was famous for it. He was also a blowhard who exaggerated everything he did. My main point was that Cody was just a symptom of the demise of the open plains and the bison who roamed there. He was not the cause. The cause was millions and millions of homesteaders. But its all a big derail.

Fine. I'm still not buying the underlying argument that you can equate the two team names in any legitimate way.

.

Fair enough. Agree to disagree. I should have worded it better, looking back, to show more that he is representative of the slaughter, almost single-handedly representative of it. Obviously he is not single handedly responsible, as he was just one man, so that is my fault for not wording that part well enough. He is the representative of it, and he was responsible for the killing of many, and as a rep. of that, and a man responsible for the slaughter of many Native Americans and then subjecting them to embarrassment, etc. in his shows later on, he would be considered as offensive to NAs, in my opinion with my background in US history, as a team naming itself the Custers.

[The Evil Genius]

Your theory of why 90% of Native Americans lied on a public opinion poll, and "knew that the word Redskins is an offensive name, and yet they defended it's usage" is . . . ?

They're all fans of the racially offensive team?

They should have called me. I'm Native American, and I would have lied, too.

Who knows Larry? Maybe they found 9 out of the 10 agreeable injuns?

I suspect had the name been the Washington Darkies...or Washington Orientals...it would have been changed a long time ago though. Even if polling showed that 9 our of 10 darkies or camry drivers approved of it.

:evilg:

[Larry]

The world we live in is what it is. "Redskin" is now viewed as a slur whether we like it or not. All the dictionaries reflect that.

No, they don't. Not one of them.

"All the dictionaries reflect" that if you ignore 99% of the world, then your point is valid.

Unfortunately, 99% of the world does, in fact, exist.

It doesn't exist in dictionaries.

I used the phrase "with reference to Native Americans" because the word "colored" is perfectly acceptable when used in reference to, say, easter eggs. I thought it was pretty obvious.

Ah, so your point is "I wanted to restrict my point so that it only refers to one possible use (out of multiple uses)?

Thank you for making my point.

The world we live in is what it is.

And that world has proper nouns in it. Yes, if we all lived in the dictionary, where the word "smith" only refers to someone's profession, and not his name, then you'd have a great point.

But the world I live in, "smith" most commonly refers to someone's last name.

But yes, you've made your point like 30 times now. If you go through the world and remove all references to football teams and potatoes, then the word "redskin" (with a small "r" is offensive.

[Predicto]

I think deep down people who aren't NA and claim the term is offensive due so out of misplaced guilt and fear from the PC crowd as being labeled racist

Hey, I admit it. I don't want to be seen as racist for rooting for my favorite football team. I don't feel guilty, nor do I think that my feeling is particularly misplaced given all those dictionary definitions to which I referred.

The PC Crowd Boogyman" is really big in this thread, but I'm not worried about what one kid majoring in ethnic outrage at UC Santa Cruz thinks. I'm more concerned that, in reality and common usage, our team name is an anachronism and kind of offensive. Maybe not so offensive that the entire world is about to rise up and strike us down in anger, but kind of offensive nonetheless.

[elkabong82]

I understand your argument. I just don't think it matters.

The world we live in is what it is. "Redskin" is now viewed as a slur whether we like it or not. All the dictionaries reflect that.

We can fight hard for our god-given right to keep using a word that is generally considered a slur by society because we don't intend it as a slur, but I really don't think it's worth doing so.

This is where I think the crux of the argument lays. If culture changes to where a word is deemed by some to be offensive, does that necessarily make it so? Now I get that if a term was commonly used in a derogatory manner, its origin is derogatory, and society gets to a point where it recognizes such as derogatory, then it should be changed.

This is why I, and others, have pointed out that Redskins did not start out as derogatory, was not commonly used as derogatory, the team name was not adopted to be derogatory either, and that the represented group is majorily not offended.

I think it is possible for a society to become oversensitive to issues, especially when there is guilt over a checkered past in regards to a specific issue (in this case race), and that reactions to such do not always mean that such is now true because society reacts a certain way. I think there has to be criteria met, and where I see criteria met with past derogatory terms, I am not seeing the same met with Redskins, which has all been argued in detail throughout this thread.

Like I've said, if the majority of NA folk were shown to say the term is offensive, if you didn't have examples of their sponsoring of the name with fans and with NA schools with the same name, then I'd be on board with the name change, and likely the name change would have already occurred, probably decades ago when the issue was first brought to court.

[Predicto]

Fair enough. Agree to disagree. I should have worded it better, looking back, to show more that he is representative of the slaughter, almost single-handedly representative of it. Obviously he is not single handedly responsible, as he was just one man, so that is my fault for not wording that part well enough. He is the representative of it, and he was responsible for the killing of many, and as a rep. of that, and a man responsible for the slaughter of many Native Americans and then subjecting them to embarrassment, etc. in his shows later on, he would be considered as offensive to NAs, in my opinion with my background in US history, as a team naming itself the Custers.

We can agree to disagree on that last line, yes, you are correct that if you really try to parse everything out, Bill Cody was a product of his time, and not a good one in so many ways.

Nevertheless, you really have to go through some mental exercises to get from there to having the name be a slur against Native Americans. The word Redskin is a lot more direct.

[Going Commando]

I think you couldn't be more wrong on this and are basing your thoughts solely off an assumption that benefits your POV.

I have said in this thread, and others agreed, that if it was clear that the majority of NA folk thought the redskin term was derogatory that we would all, or most of us anyway, support a name change and that in all likelihood the name would have already been changed.

I think deep down people who aren't NA and claim the term is offensive due so out of misplaced guilt and fear from the PC crowd as being labeled racist; either that or they too only loom at the issue surface deep and see "skin" and assume it is racist.

Meh, I think you're lying to yourself and convincing yourself that Redskins isn't a derogatory term with specious arguments despite the fact that it's obviously a derogatory term. I think the rest of the world outside of the fan base sees it as an obviously derogatory term.

[elkabong82]

Hey, I admit it. I don't want to be seen as racist for rooting for my favorite football team. I don't feel guilty, nor do I think that my feeling is particularly misplaced given all those dictionary definitions to which I referred.

The PC Crowd Boogyman" is really big in this thread, but I'm not worried about what one kid majoring in ethnic outrage at UC Santa Cruz thinks. I'm more concerned that, in reality and common usage, our team name is an anachronism and kind of offensive. Maybe not so offensive that the entire world is about to rise up and strike us down in anger, but kind of offensive nonetheless.

Trust me, I don't want to be viewed as racist by folks, nor likely do most of us. We all share that fear, just as most of us do view other races as equal people since they are.

I think society is still finding itself with race and culture though. Indians was an offensive term for NAs for a bit, as was black for African Americans, but both are coming back now, even though one was a misplaced geographical term and the other is an identifier based solely on skin color.

I clearly see WHY Redskin is thought by some to be offensive, but I don't agree with it and I have what I believe is strong reasoning behind it. "Colored," the n word, oriental, yellow, have all had the majority of offended groups voice their displeasure over it and did not themselves create the terms. Redskin, however, was created by NA folks, was not a commonly used derogatory term, hence you aren't likely to find a lot of primary sources depicting such like you will with savage, and the majority of NA folk accept and even endorse the name. I see a name that touches on an issue with skin color in this country, but that is being misidentified as belonging with other offensive terms based off assumption.

---------- Post added February-7th-2013 at 06:03 PM ----------

Meh, I think you're lying to yourself and convincing yourself that Redskins isn't a derogatory term with specious arguments despite the fact that it's obviously a derogatory term. I think the rest of the world outside of the fan base sees it as an obviously derogatory term.

Then I think you should address the actual specifics of my argument and the specifics that others have argued with you as well since you're making sweeping statements about those arguments and my position on the matter.

I think the majority of Native Americans DON'T see it as derogatory and I think their opinion carries more weight than anyone else on this matter.

[Predicto]

No, they don't. Not one of them.

"All the dictionaries reflect" that if you ignore 99% of the world, then your point is valid.

Unfortunately, 99% of the world does, in fact, exist.

It doesn't exist in dictionaries.

Ah, so your point is "I wanted to restrict my point so that it only refers to one possible use (out of multiple uses)?

Thank you for making my point.

And that world has proper nouns in it. Yes, if we all lived in the dictionary, where the word "smith" only refers to someone's profession, and not his name, then you'd have a great point.

But the world I live in, "smith" most commonly refers to someone's last name.

But yes, you've made your point like 30 times now. If you go through the world and remove all references to football teams and potatoes, then the word "redskin" (with a small "r" is offensive.

There are many angels on this pin now Larry. The pin still has the word Redskin sitting right smack atop a Native American logo.

Everyone understands that referring to the Washington Redskins American Football Team founded in the year 1932 by George Preston Marshall is not the same as slurring a Native American by saying "hey, Redskin, come here!" In modern times, the overwhelming use of the eight letters "r-e-d-s-k-i-n-s" in a certain sequence is to refer to the professional football team of that name. We all get that.

Theoretically, the exact same argument could be made if the name was the Washington Anythings. It doesn't resolve the question of whether an anachronistic name should be retired.

---------- Post added February-7th-2013 at 05:11 PM ----------

Trust me, I don't want to be viewed as racist by folks, nor likely do most of us. We all share that fear, just as most of us do view other races as equal people since they are.

I think society is still finding itself with race and culture though. Indians was an offensive term for NAs for a bit, as was black for African Americans, but both are coming back now, even though one was a misplaced geographical term and the other is an identifier based solely on skin color.

I clearly see WHY Redskin is thought by some to be offensive, but I don't agree with it and I have what I believe is strong reasoning behind it. "Colored," the n word, oriental, yellow, have all had the majority of offended groups voice their displeasure over it and did not themselves create the terms. Redskin, however, was created by NA folks, was not a commonly used derogatory term, hence you aren't likely to find a lot of primary sources depicting such like you will with savage, and the majority of NA folk accept and even endorse the name. I see a name that touches on an issue with skin color in this country, but that is being misidentified as belonging with other offensive terms based off assumption.

I think all these arguments can be made, from an intellectual point of view. I don't think they are worth making. I don't see this as a fight worth fighting. I think we should accept the reality of the times, same as with the word "colored."

[Going Commando]

You missed a word in my post: "viewed." We all acknowledge that it is viewed by some as offensive, and we are arguing that such a view is incorrect.

People, including me, are arguing that it isn't offensive, and we acknowledge while doing so that there are others who VIEW the term as offensive.

Does that clear it up for you?

LARRY: "viewed," as in, some VIEW it as offensive. If you've been reading through this thread then you know we are on the same side on this issue.

Take the time to read and fully understand a post people

What's the difference between something being "viewed as offensive" and something being offensive?

Doesn't the quality of being offensive come from the external person, entity, hivemind, etc. that finds it offensive? Can something be offensive in and of itself? If I shout the "N Word" in the total vacuum of space, does it still count as offensive?

I understand your argument perfectly well. I also understand the motivation behind it because I've been there before, wrestling with it all in my head, trying to find a way around the inconsistency of my position. It's an attempt at meaningless hair splitting to get around the fact the name is obviously an offensive term. It's perhaps viewed as offensive, but that's not the same as it being offensive (though I can't really say how). It's not really offensive (because I say it's not intended to be offensive).

It's basically tantamount to telling offended people they are not allowed to be offended by what they find offensive.

[Larry]

The PC Crowd Boogyman" is really big in this thread,

I think it was mentioned once.

Yeah, it's huge.

but I'm not worried about what one kid majoring in ethnic outrage at UC Santa Cruz thinks.

Nor are you apparently concerned with what 90% of Native Americans think.

I'm more concerned that, in reality and common usage, our team name is an anachronism and kind of offensive.

It is neither.

"If you pretend that the anachronism and offensive usage is the totality of usage" is not common usage. No matter how many times you try to pretend that the vast, overwhelming, majority of usage doesn't exist.

I suggested that you use Google, as an attempt to judge common usage. (Funny, you ignored that suggestion, and kept playing "let's move this discussion into a Universe where that usage doesn't exist".) So I decided to do the test myself.

Google search on "redskin". (I intentionally chose to use the singular, knowing that it would tilt the results away from the team name, which is a plural.) The first 101 hits are listed. (I have no idea why Google sometimes lists 10 results per page, sometimes 11.) Here's what I found: (In descending order. Ties are listed according to which one I hit first.)

87 hits relating to the football team.

3 hits relating to medical conditions. ("red skin")

3 dictionary entries.

2 articles about the football team's name.

2 other proper names. (A bowling alley and a wrestling team)

1 IMDB article about a film "Redskins" made in 1929.

1 Wiki disambiguation page (Click here for the football team, here for the subculture, here for the)

1 Wiki subculture page, explaining that in skinhead subculture, the term "redskin" refers to a communist or socialist skinhead.

Know what I notice? Not one of those hits, is the thing that you're desperately trying to claim is "in reality and common usage".

Not one.

---------- Post added February-7th-2013 at 06:24 PM ----------

There are many angels on this pin now Larry.

The condescension might go over better if you hadn't been spending the last four pages trying desperately to pretend that the majority of the world doesn't exist.

I'm getting sick of it. Drop it.

[elkabong82]

What's the difference between something being "viewed as offensive" and something being offensive?

Doesn't the quality of being offensive come from the external person, entity, hivemind, etc. that finds it offensive? Can something be offensive in and of itself? If I shout the "N Word" in the total vacuum of space, does it still count as offensive?

I understand your argument perfectly well. I also understand the motivation behind it because I've been there before, wrestling with it all in my head, trying to find a way around the inconsistency of my position. It's an attempt at meaningless hair splitting to get around the fact the name is obviously an offensive term. It's perhaps viewed as offensive, but that's not the same as it being offensive (though I can't really say how). It's not really offensive (because I say it's not intended to be offensive).

It's basically tantamount to telling offended people they are not allowed to be offended by what they find offensive.

Really? You don't understand the difference between "viewed as " and is?"

A perspective is not always fact and you are grossly misunderstanding the context in which I used "view" and trying to base a philosophical argument off of that. Really, I'd say the quality of offensiveness is based on whether or not the group such a term is in reference to is indeed offended by it, as well as the intent behind the usage of that term.

I said that nobody in here was arguing that there aren't people who VIEW the term Redskins as offensive, but that we were arguing using facts to show that such a VIEW is incorrect.

The name is only "obviously" offensive to those who refuse to see the name's origin and instead nod their heads along with the overreactions of our culture's PC nature to automatically assume that because there is color and skin in the name that it has to be racist. As I've said in here, it is a false assumption. The name was created by NA folk, and is not viewed as offensive by the majority of NA folk, so therefor it is not derogatory, regardless of the confusion caused by assumptions from the PC crowd.

What you and others are doing is trying to tell NA folk that they should be offended by something they aren't offended by, and you don't have the right nor justification to do so. If the majority were in fact offended, this issue would be an open and shut case for most of us.

[FanboyOf91]

Letting PC trolls win doesn't stop the PC trolling.

Don't give in to PC trolls, kids.

[Larry]

deleted post.

[Predicto]

Well, I'm just a PC troll now. Oh well.

[Jumbo]

I suggested to Dan we quit screwing around and change it to The Washington Jumbos.