The Official ES All Things Redskins Name Change Thread (Reboot Edition---Read New OP)

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

IF the majority doesn't decide decency who does?

 

I agree. All decisions on what books we can read and words we can say and who we should marry should be done by popular vote. Let's start in Mississippi and see what they come up with.

[codeorama]

who gets to decide what is decent?

As is with the case if the n word, society fights back. That's what's happening now. More people are speaking up. I know some of it is "political", but even at that, what to the dems gain?

What I didn't realize was that if you google search dictionary, then go to the top 4 results (I only tried the top 4) and search for the definition of redskin, you get:

Main Entry: red·skin

Pronunciation: \ˈred-ˌskin\

Function: noun

Date: 1699

usually offensive : american indian

redskin

Syllabification: red·skin

Pronunciation: /ˈredˌskin /

NOUN

• dated or • offensive

An American Indian.

... And so on.

Dan Snyder needs to fix the dictionary.

[Commander PK]

I already told you: 20 percent of Native Americans.

 

(And, possibly, Dan Snyder's corporate partners).

 

I see

 

Coke and Fed Ex get to decide what is decent.  I find that incredibly disturbing.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

I see

 

Coke and Fed Ex get to decide what is decent.  I find that incredibly disturbing.

 

It's not ideal. But corporations are the modern day Warren Court in a lot of ways.

[codeorama]

I see

Coke and Fed Ex get to decide what is decent. I find that incredibly disturbing.

Money is king. This happens all the time. Just like in the Sterling thing. Sponsors don't want to be associated. Things change.

[DogofWar1]

This is one place I don't agree with you. Majority doesn't rule when it comes to decency.

To an extent I agree, BUT, we have to look at a lot of parts to understand if the minority is offended because it truly is offensive.

That's a big problem with the debate. A lot of allegations have been thrown around about the name that are unsubstantiated or are false. Some allegations hold some water, but we need to be careful to understand just how much water they hold.

For example, one of the origin allegations was that it originated from scalping. That appears to be false. If the argument for the name being offensive rests on the origin being tied to scalping, then the allegations that the term is offensive lose some strength.

Obviously, hypothesized scalping ties aren't the only allegations, but the point is that where a minority, and potentially a small one at that, are offended, the allegations of the minority need to be scrutinized carefully. If something is supposedly objectively offensive, and yet the majority of the target group does not say it is offensive, we need to figure out why the minority is saying it's offensive and determine what underlying allegations hold water and which don't. The smaller the minority, the more scrutiny the allegations should receive.

[codeorama]

To an extent I agree, BUT, we have to look at a lot of parts to understand if the minority is offended because it truly is offensive.

That's a big problem with the debate. A lot of allegations have been thrown around about the name that are unsubstantiated or are false. Some allegations hold some water, but we need to be careful to understand just how much water they hold.

For example, one of the origin allegations was that it originated from scalping. That appears to be false. If the argument for the name being offensive rests on the origin being tied to scalping, then the allegations that the term is offensive lose some strength.

Obviously, hypothesized scalping ties aren't the only allegations, but the point is that where a minority, and potentially a small one at that, are offended, the allegations of the minority need to be scrutinized carefully. If something is supposedly objectively offensive, and yet the majority of the target group does not say it is offensive, we need to figure out why the minority is saying it's offensive and determine what underlying allegations hold water and which don't. The smaller the minority, the more scrutiny the allegations should receive.

Nice post. I agree with a lot. For example, I think the scalps BS is just that. Come on, redskin, it's literal. I've read enough to see that as not being genuine. (Or genuine enough).

Also, I agree, the question is how many need to be offended...

[Spearfeather]

Money is king. This happens all the time.

 

Isn't one of our minority owners, the CEO of FedEx ?

[Spear]

The thing that pisses me off is that the more this gets discussed, the more the idea that the name is a slur gets spread. People don't have to find it personally offensive. If they hear that someone else is offended, they start to incongruously equate it to words that ARE personally offensive, like the N word. And if they hear that it's offensive with great frequency, it's going to sink in even faster.

 

There's no PR battle to be won here. This method of attack would lead to any word being made taboo. Human psychology is such that the word "kit kat" could be a slur if a handful of people decided it was and started a campaign.

 

In the future, obese people and/or people with acromegaly could claim "giant" is a slur. Vikings, Buccanneers, and Raiders could remind people of rape, robbery, and murder, leading to their ban. "Jets" were used in the most notorious terrorist attack on US soil. Cowboys scared the crap out of animals for a living. Even "Patriots" is starting to take on negative jingoistic connotations in our culture. It may sound ridiculous now, but never underestimate how susceptible the public consciousness is to suggestion. Given enough time chipping away, any small faction could get the public to take any of those ideas seriously. The well can so very easily be poisoned.

 

But I'm a man of reason. If these groups can demonstrate through research that there would be a public benefit to the name change, then that would be one thing. So far, all we have are baseless claims about the harm it's doing and really underhanded debate tactics (notice that they argue from the position that Redskin is a universally accepted slur, rather than arguing that it is a slur -- which is the logical fallacy known as "begging the question").

 

In the meantime, I'm going to try to tune this out, because it's the only real way to fight it. I'm going to enjoy the name Redskin, because it's an awesome, intimidating name -- which is exactly why it was applied in the first place. The proposed alternative names are jokes and I'm STILL mad about Wizards, so I'm really not inclined to surrender it. Not without some proof that it's doing actual harm.

 

My suspicion is that this isn't even about Redskin being offensive. These groups want all native American imagery removed from sports and they probably just view Redskin as the easiest domino to knock over.

[codeorama]

My suspicion is that this isn't even about Redskin being offensive. These groups want all native American imagery removed from sports and they probably just view Redskin as the easiest domino to knock over.

Wow. I hadn't thought of that. Let me ask. Why do they want all NA imagery removed? I never under stood William and Mary changing.

I wouldn't think chiefs or Indians could be offensive but the Indians logo is.

[Commander PK]

anyone else see the irony in the implication of the American Dollar Bill ultimately deciding what is morally right and decent for Native Americans?

 

lol

[codeorama]

anyone else see the irony in the implication of the American Dollar Bill ultimately deciding what is morally right and decent for Native Americans?

lol

In all seriousness, that's how our society works now. The nba players are going to boycott if something isn't done about Sterling. How many times has the NAACP threatened boycotts? Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. Snyder took a Hardline and now, the opponents of the name know the only way to go at him is by outcry and money.

[grego]

Nice post. I agree with a lot. For example, I think the scalps BS is just that. Come on, redskin, it's literal. I've read enough to see that as not being genuine. (Or genuine enough).

Also, I agree, the question is how many need to be offended...

Maybe there's a question that should be asked before that- "why does the word offend you?"

I've asked this before, but do you think it's a fair question?

I ask because there are some who claim it's offensive due to historically in accurate stories of the words origin. Others would say that the word has been used in an offensive manner- as a slur.

I don't think the former reason holds water. Those people are annoying and won't listen to reason.

I guess what it comes down to is, - does the words occasional use as a slur by some ignorant people dictate that it should be changed?

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

 

In the future, obese people and/or people with acromegaly could claim "giant" is a slur. Vikings, Buccanneers, and Raiders could remind people of rape, robbery, and murder, leading to their ban. "Jets" were used in the most notorious terrorist attack on US soil. Cowboys scared the crap out of animals for a living. Even "Patriots" is starting to take on negative jingoistic connotations in our culture. It may sound ridiculous now, but never underestimate how susceptible the public consciousness is to suggestion. Given enough time chipping away, any small faction could get the public to take any of those ideas seriously. The well can so very easily be poisoned.

 

 

This is not a criticism of you, but this argument appears on every page of this thread. It started out as one of the five dumbest arguments ever made. And it gets dumber with each subsequent appearance.

 

Yes, in theory, fat people (those ****s!) could decide that "Giant" is offensive. And they would probably get laughed at, because

"giant" is not defined in the dictionary as a slur. Like redskins is.

 

The problem with all these analogies comes back to the dictionary.

[codeorama]

Maybe there's a question that should be asked before that- "why does the word offend you?"

I've asked this before, but do you think it's a fair question?

I ask because there are some who claim it's offensive due to historically in accurate stories of the words origin. Others would say that the word has been used in an offensive manner- as a slur.

I don't think the former reason holds water. Those people are annoying and won't listen to reason.

I guess what it comes down to is, - does the words occasional use as a slur by some ignorant people dictate that it should be changed?

Personally, the word does not offend me. It's not directed to me the n word doesn't offend me. I know better than to use the n word and as I stated, my personal experience changed my view. I'm still not offended, but there's no doubt the word is used as a slur in some small places today. Probably a lot more in the past.

I think the redskins logo is very honorable. I believe the intention was never negative. But, the word is used that way. Just look in the dictionary

I don't know the answer. I just wanted to point out the experience I had.

[Section106]

deleted post

[DogofWar1]

This is not a criticism of you, but this argument appears on every page of this thread. It started out as one of the five dumbest arguments ever made. And it gets dumber with each subsequent appearance.

Yes, in theory, fat people (those ****s!) could decide that "Giant" is offensive. And they would probably get laughed at, because

"giant" is not defined in the dictionary as a slur. Like redskins is.

The problem with all these analogies comes back to the dictionary.

Well, to be fair, change proponents consistently cite a comparison to the n-word despite numerous plain to see differences.

The analogies are similarly apt, so while neither is particularly good, if we're using one we might as well use the other.

[RFKFedEx]

Wow. I hadn't thought of that. Let me ask. Why do they want all NA imagery removed? I never under stood William and Mary changing.

I wouldn't think chiefs or Indians could be offensive but the Indians logo is.

Some who would like to see the Native imagery retired believe that employment of such symbols (by non Natives) is unauthorized. Nobody sought permission to represent Natives in early 20th century, they just did it. Most of society thought little or nothing of it until a few decades ago. Sports teams, auto manufacturers, summer camp directors, they all found success with Native themes. Today, people have generally veered away from that practice. New schools, newly founded athletic teams, and most debuting consumer products tend to lack the Native themes or imagery common throughout the first half of last century.

 

Others see the Native mascots and imagery as a 'one size fits all' approach to summing up a people. Not all Native people or Native groups look like our sports logos, hood ornaments, or camp logos. 

[codeorama]

Some who would like to see the Native imagery retired believe that employment of such symbols (by non Natives) is unauthorized. Nobody sought permission to represent Natives in early 20th century, they just did it. Most of society thought little or nothing of it until a few decades ago. Sports teams, auto manufacturers, summer camp directors, they all found success with Native themes. Today, people have generally veered away from that practice. New schools, newly founded athletic teams, and most debuting consumer products tend to lack the Native themes or imagery common throughout the first half of last century.

Others see the Native mascots and imagery as a 'one size fits all' approach to summing up a people. Not all Native people or Native groups look like our sports logos, hood ornaments, or camp logos.

Thanks. That makes sense.

[nonniey]

This is not a criticism of you, but this argument appears on every page of this thread. It started out as one of the five dumbest arguments ever made. And it gets dumber with each subsequent appearance.

 

Yes, in theory, fat people (those ****s!) could decide that "Giant" is offensive. And they would probably get laughed at, because

"giant" is not defined in the dictionary as a slur. Like redskins is.

 

The problem with all these analogies comes back to the dictionary.

Except the dictionary (some dictionaries) term that Redskins is a slur is a relatively recent development. A dictionary can change it's definition on any word like it did with the Redskins. 

[Boss_Hogg]

Money is king. This happens all the time. Just like in the Sterling thing. Sponsors don't want to be associated. Things change.

 

Coca Cola and FedEx would be making a major mistake by pulling out of the 4th most valuable sports franchise in the world.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

Dan Snyder needs to buy a dictionary company.

[Larry]

Maybe there's a question that should be asked before that- "why does the word offend you?"

I've asked this before, but do you think it's a fair question?

No, I don;t think it is.

To me, it's at least really close to "you being offended doesn't count, unless I think you have a good enough justification."

Now, having said that, I do think that we need to be on the lookout for people who decide that the word is offensive, because they've been told that other people say it's offensive. (When, if fact, they've said exactly the opposite.)

But, while I can ask someone "Do you think someone else is offended?", and they can be wrong, I think that, if I ask someone "Are you offended?", and they say "yes" (or "no"), then their answer stands as authoritative, and sufficient. (Unless you want to assert that someone is just flat out lying. An assertion that's really tough to back up.)

[Commander PK]

Except the dictionary (some dictionaries) term that Redskins is a slur is a relatively recent development. A dictionary can change it's definition on any word like it did with the Redskins.

I contributed hard copy evidence of this several pages ago. I don't even remember which page. 1971 Websters made no mention of the term being a slur...only that it was a Native American.

[Larry]

I contributed hard copy evidence of this several pages ago. I don't even remember which page. 1971 Websters made no mention of the term being a slur...only that it was a Native American.

But I think you'll find that in 71, NO term was defined as offensive.

I would assert that the term, WHEN NOT REFERRING TO THE FOOTBALL TEAM, was offensive in 71, too. The dictionary just didn't list that description.

The problem with the "the dictionary says so" argument, is that dictionaries, by their own rules, do not list proper nouns. (They don't list the "capital R" redskins). So, the dictionary is playing the same game as the other people who want to take the word out of the name, move it to some other sentence, and then claim that "well, it's offensive over there, therefore it's offensive here, too".