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

[Dan T.]

Merriam-Webster:

Origin of OREO

from Oreo, trademark for a chocolate cookie with a white cream filling

First Known Use: 1969

_____________________

 

 

Oxford Dictionary:

Definition of Oreo in English: noun (plural Oreos) US trademark

1A brand of chocolate sandwich cookie with a creamy white filling.

Example sentences

• For dessert we both had this concoction involving Oreo cookies and ice cream.
• Yesterday I had a half a package of Oreos with chocolate creme filling.
• I was trying to drown my sorrows in Oreos and chocolate milk.
• Get more examples

1.1 derogatory An African-American who is seen, especially by other blacks, as wishing to be part of the white establishment.

 

--------------------

 

Collins Dictionary:

 

Oreo (ˈɔːrɪəʊ) 

Definitions

noun (US)

1. ® a popular brand of biscuit, consisting of two thin chocolate wafers with white icing between them
2. (pejorative) a black person who upholds or adheres to white values and eschews the black community

[Bang]

I agree that removing all the records would be the worst case scenario.

 

However, you have to consider that once the name is deemed offensive and removed based on that determination, a precedent has be set.  Nothing now would stop a harjo from walking into Canton and calling her lawyer to file a law suit. 

 

One of the first groups that i recall in my lifetime that was "granted" an identity change by society at large was when Natives decided that it was no longer proper to refer to them as "indians", and the term "Native American" became the standard that most of us now use.(To my memory, this was even before the term "African American" came into being.)

 

But the Oolong Indians are still in the Hall of Fame, and the only thing i know of that may have changed is that they are described as a team made entirely of Native Americans, as opposed to being entirely Indians.

 

Precedent has been set, and it was to keep historical references to team names, even if the name is now deemed to be offensive.

You will also find the Oolong Indians records in the NFL Fact and record book, and Jim Thorpe's statistics while a member of the Oolong Indians are still recorded as such.

 

~Bang

[Xameil]

Listen man, I don't agree with the comparison at all.

Oreos' original use was to name a snack.

Redskin's original use was to describe people (in a racist way or not depending on your interpretation).

Even if you don't agree, I hope you can understand why I think they are a bit different and should be treated as such

Actually...Redskin was a name that was started by Native Americans if i remember correctly, so it never started put as a racist term.

And neither did Oreo, so....same thing

[Boss_Hogg]

So does anyone have a good explanation on what if anything changes because of this ruling?  I mean legally and in a practical sense, the public perception of this ruling will be hard to judge immediately. 

 

Legally it doesn't mean anything. 

 

However it's a watershed moment for the Native American activists. The ruling gives them more leverage and credibility. 

 

Someone better mail some dictionaries to those NA high schools that use Redskins name so they can "wise up" and change it. 

 

Words can become offensive over time, so the reverse must be true. The word is predominantly used as a positive, for a football team, and used by NA high schools to that extent as well. The usage of it as a slur is long outdated and not common place at all. 

 

Those dictionaries, btw, any time they site origin it's always incorrect. 

 

Native Americans should have agency over a controversial word about their race. If they want to call themselves Redskins then so be it; it's their right. 

 

But one can argue that a professional football team owned by a white dude and operated by several other non Native Americans shouldn't use said word. 

 

Are you aware that includes our Native American fans? Are you saying they too are on the wrong side of history, as are the 90% polled in the only reliable measurement to date?

 

About that 2004 Annenberg poll. 

 

The survey asked random people if they were Native American; but did not follow with any additional questions about tribal membership, level of heritage, or affiliation. Nor did it question whether said person lives on a reservation.

 

Which poses another problem, many reservations are economically depressed and lack basic first world necessitates such as touch-tone phones. 

 

And now the self-identification problem:

 

In the name change debate, how many times have we heard “Well I’m 1/16th Cherokee, but it’s on my mother’s father’s side.” 

 

The fact is that tribes have specific membership requirements.  Most tribes either require proof that an ancestor was a tribal member, or that you are at least a 1/8th member of the tribe — meaning at least one grandparent was a full-blooded tribal member.

 

There could have been 700 Elizabeth Warren's on the other end of the line...we'll never know if those polled were actually Native American. 

 

The polling question:

 

Here's the question surveyors asked the 700 "self-identified" Native Americans on the phone:

 

“The professional football team in Washington calls itself the Washington Redskins.  As a Native American, do you find that name offensive or doesn’t it bother you?”

 

Sounds confusing to me, especially when the polling folks were looking for a Yes/No answer. 

 

In typical liberal fashion.... When the debate is not favoring there side, emotion comes into play. All the opposing facts, "don't count or don't matter".

 

-Hail to the REDSKINS!

 

Tom Cole, John McCain, Charles Krauthamer, and Billy Mills (all Republicans) want name changed. 

 

Cole is a member of the Chickasaw Nation while Billy Mills is Oglala Lakota (Sioux).

 

Plus, I'm a Republican.

 

Funny.

Both "redskin" and "Oreo" are words which can be used as proper nouns, and which can be used to refer to a person.

Both of them are registered trade marks.

Both of them are used, in the context of their trade marks, much more frequently than they are used to label people (not affiliated with the trade mark).

Both of them can be offensive, when used outside of their trade marked usage.

Both of them are non-offensive, when used in their trademarked usage.

Both of them, when viewed in a dictionary, are required to pretend that the trademarked usage does not exist, (just as all words are, in dictionaries). And therefore, the dictionary is required to define the word strictly on its rarely-used usage.

Looks like that shoe fits pretty well, to me.

----------

And I will point out, again (since you seem to have accidentally missed it, the first two times I pointed it out). You are waving around a piece of paper which is required, by its own rules, to pretend that the Washington Redskins do not exist. And citing it as some kind of authority on the Washington Redskins.

 

I agree that context matters, but what sports team out there is using a cookie as it's mascot?

 

Is the sports mascot cookie's portrayal causing negative stereotypes and attitudes towards other cookies?

 

Oh my lord. So many tired, bad arguments.

I can't believe some redskin fans woke up and formed an opinion out of the blue about the name today.

****ing Google, people. Use it.

****.

 

I've been wrestling with this for months. I used to be an ardent supporter of the name. 

 

But I think we need to move on and adopt a mascot that's unifying and not dividing. 

 

Also one cannot deny that Redskins is seen as a slur to many Native Americans:

 

Billy Mills: Redskins Name Calls to Mind 'Our Own Holocaust'

http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/2013/11/09/billy-mills-redskins-name-calls-mind-our-own-holocaust-152165

 

Blackfeet Tribal member weighs in: They were always after the dirty redskins — 'Those dirty redskins' — that's exactly what they'd say. 'Those filthy redskins.' http://www.greatfallstribune.com/story/news/local/2014/11/17/redskins-racial-slur-blackfeet-weigh/19206641/

 

What also swayed me was the number of tribes and Native American organizations that have come out against the name.

 

I love this team and I always will, I'm a season ticket holder and I plan on going to all the games this year. But I won't shed a tear when the name changes.

 

It's time.

 

I am in support of the team name and do not want it changed.  I'm curious to know from the name change crew how they would want the name dealt with in the hall of fame and NFL records?  Should the name be redacted in all instances?  If not, why should it remain?

 

The history will stay. Sammy's jersey in Canton will remain along with Joe Gibb's bust. All relics in Canton will keep the name Redskins. 

[BRAVEONTHEWARPATH93]

Actually...Redskin was a name that was started by Native Americans if i remember correctly, so it never started put as a racist term.

And neither did Oreo, so....same thing

Exactly. It describes people...by their race. Thus, different from something used to name a sweet

[ZRagone]

Actually...Redskin was a name that was started by Native Americans if i remember correctly, so it never started put as a racist term.

And neither did Oreo, so....same thing

 

I think he was meaning that the Redskins word was originally used to describe a group of people and THEN became a term referring to a football team (the proper noun in this case). Oreo was originally used to describe the cookie (the proper noun) and THEN became a term referring to a group of people.

 

 

Merriam-Webster:

Origin of OREO

from Oreo, trademark for a chocolate cookie with a white cream filling

First Known Use: 1969

_____________________

 

The first definition you had there is not a "definition", it's a trademark reference. Similarly you can find "Kleenex", not as a definition but as a trademark.

 

Also, I'd love a link...because I'm not seeing it

 

Merriam-Webster DICTIONARY definitions: oreo

[Larry]

Actually, this is a lie. Almost all the dictionaries I checked discuss the origin of the disparaging use of oreo by describing the trademarked cookie. Because it would be stupid and useless to provide a definition of oreo without the context of what an Oreo cookie looks like. Some include the trademarked name as a definition in and of itself. So double-stuf your argument.

Only if your definition of "lie" is "doesn't fit the false narrative I'm trying to push".

Guess what? The origin of "redskin" wasn't offensive, either.

You've just hit upon another way the two terms are similar.

I'll make it simple.

The dictionary says that the trademarked name of a commercial item, is a racial slur. Therefore the commercial item must change it's name.

Is the above statement a valid argument?

[Larry]

<p>

Merriam-Webster: Origin of OREO

from Oreo, trademark for a chocolate cookie with a white cream filling

First Known Use: 1969

_____________________

Oxford Dictionary:

NOW, you've brought some facts to the discussion.

Show me the dictionary definition that says

Redskin:

(Offensive) An NFL football team associated with the city of Washington, DC.

[s0crates]

You guys advancing the "Oreo" is like "Redskin" nonsense . . . My goodness, it's a bad look. I'd stick with the "Native Americans like the name and/or don't care" argument if I were you.

[grego]

socrates, you understand the oreo comparison is directly tied to the dictionary definition argument? they are both defined as slurs?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.....[ya know, deep know, i actually understand that people become tied to a cause and, no matter what, will plug their ears while shouting 'lalalalalala...i cant hear you'.....so i'm not sure why i even try. but i do]

i mean, you can still be for a name change while acknowledging that you at least comprehend the meaning of a dictionary defined slur.

 

i'll play- i get the cultural appropriation argument. i get that drunk white guys dressing up like native warriors can be seen as disrespectful. 

 

that, folks, is a discussion that can be had. 

 

it doesnt, however, make the word 'redskins' a slur that should not be the name of an NFL team. 

 

complicated stuff, this is not. 

[s0crates]

socrates, you understand the oreo comparison is directly tied to the dictionary definition argument? they are both defined as slurs?

Sure I get its meant to be an analogy, but it's a false analogy.

Although "Oreo" sometimes refers to some members of a race in a disparaging way, it does not always refer to a race, in fact it often refers to a cookie, a usage which is quite common and completely innocuous (a distinction most dictionaries make clear). "Redskin," by contrast, is always a racial term (again, as most dictionaries make clear).

Refusing to see this obvious distinction makes you appear disingenuous and silly.

.....[ya know, deep know, i actually understand that people become tied to a cause and, no matter what, will plug their ears while shouting 'lalalalalala...i cant hear you'.....so i'm not sure why i even try. but i do]

Says the guy who ignored Dan T's cogent explanation of why the argument fails.

[grego]

Sure I get its meant to be an analogy, but it's a false analogy.

Although "Oreo" sometimes refers to some members of a race in a disparaging way, it does not always refer to a race, in fact it often refers to a cookie, a usage which is quite common and completely innocuous (a distinction most dictionaries make clear). "Redskin," by contrast, is always a racial term (again, as most dictionaries make clear).

Refusing to see this obvious distinction makes you appear disingenuous and silly.

 

 

i agree with everything you said. you are absolutely correct. 

 

and webster defines both as slurs.

[Larry]

About that 2004 Annenberg poll.

1) I think you broke my record for "longest post containing the most quotes". I'm gonna have to get you, for that.

2) Yes, we've all seen the standard list of excuses people have been trying to use, to justify completely ignoring the one and only time that a reputable, independent, polling organization, actually asked actual Natives, nation wide (actually, "lower 48 wide".  Annenberg does not poll Alaska or Hawaii.). 

 

I'm not going to go and spend another couple of hours pointing out why these might be reasons why Annenberg might be off by a few percent, they are nowhere close to the "therefore, we should just ignore it, and make up whatever we want" that people seem to want. 

 

I'll link to a post I made, some time ago, when I sat down and actually did some math, to respond to them. 

[Bonez3]

You guys advancing the "Oreo" is like "Redskin" nonsense . . . My goodness, it's a bad look. I'd stick with the "Native Americans like the name and/or don't care" argument if I were you.

For the record... I don't care if NA's like the word, or they don't care. Please add one more option, the 'words not racist or derogatory' choice bt can be used in derogatory context just as easily as Indian or Chief.

[Larry]

Although "Oreo" sometimes refers to some members of a race in a disparaging way, it does not always refer to a race, in fact it often refers to a cookie, a usage which is quite common and completely innocuous (a distinction most dictionaries make clear). "Redskin," by contrast, is always a racial term (again, as most dictionaries make clear).

Congratulations.  You have just pointed out that a word can be used in multiple ways, and that it can be offensive in some, and not in others. 

 

Now, I believe we were discussing the name of a football team, the Washington Redskins. 

[s0crates]

Congratulations. You have just pointed out that a word can be used in multiple ways, and that it can be offensive in some, and not in others.

Now, I believe we were discussing the name of a football team, the Washington Redskins.

Is it your contention that "Redskins" does not always refer to a race? If so, what do you think our mascot is?

[ZRagone]

Sure I get its meant to be an analogy, but it's a false analogy.

Although "Oreo" sometimes refers to some members of a race in a disparaging way, it does not always refer to a race, in fact it often refers to a cookie, a usage which is quite common and completely innocuous (a distinction most dictionaries make clear). "Redskin," by contrast, is always a racial term (again, as most dictionaries make clear).

 

Except you're wrong, simply put.

 

Both "Redskins" and "Oreo" are most COMMONLY used to refer to a proper noun...the cookie and the football team.

Both are defined in the dictionary as a usually offensive word.

 

If someone's claim is simply "The dictionary calls it a slur, so that's what it is" then it's absolutely an accurate analogy. Because the actual DEFINITION...not the reference to the trademark term...of both words are about the slur, not the proper noun. Because the dictionary does not define proper nouns.

[s0crates]

Zaragone, try reading what I posted again (or Dan T's recent posts). There is a crucial distinction you're missing here (and it isn't subtle).

Hint: the dictionary has one definition of "redskin" and two definitions of "Oreo."

[Larry]

What do you think our mascot is, if not a nation, race, or races of people?

 

Actually, I don't believe the team has a mascot. 

 

Now, if you intend to point out that the team's name refers to a race, I'll absolutely agree with you. 

 

(Although I'll point out that Vikings and Irish sure are pretty close, too.  Yes, I understand that it's possible to argue about what is or isn't a race.  Although I also suspect that those definitions have changed, over time.) 

 

Therefore . . . . ? 

[s0crates]

Actually, I don't believe the team has a mascot.

Now, if you intend to point out that the team's name refers to a race, I'll absolutely agree with you.

(Although I'll point out that Vikings and Irish sure are pretty close, too. Yes, I understand that it's possible to argue about what is or isn't a race. Although I also suspect that those definitions have changed, over time.)

Therefore . . . . ?

Good point about the Irish. If Irish intellectuals were campaigning against Notre Dame's mascot, then I'd say Notre Dame should change it.

[grego]

Hint: the dictionary has one definition of "redskin" and two definitions of "Oreo."

 

the origin of oreo is sometimes listed (not always, i've seen). 

 

if the dictionary listed the origin of redskin, it would not be 'slur'.

 

i believe they absolutely should list the origins of words, but who am i to say? i also think they should list the most common or obvious use, which they do not. i think if they did, this discussion wouldnt be happening. 

 

what can ya do?

[Larry]

Good point about the Irish. If Irish intellectuals were campaigning against Notre Dame's mascot, then I'd say Notre Dame should change it.

 

Folks, I think we have now seen the first new "name change" argument, in this thread, in what seems like 10 years.  Congratulations!!!!!

 

The argument  that the name of a corporation should be changed, if the intellectual members (and only those members) of a group, say so. 

 

----------

 

Did I lay it on thick enough? 

[Bonez3]

Good point about the Irish. If Irish intellectuals were campaigning against Notre Dame's mascot, then I'd say Notre Dame should change it.

Why does it have to be Irish intellectuals. What if you took Irish American high school students and showed them the mascot and than did a self esteem study. What if results were similar to prior mentioned results. Than, what if a bunch of people with no stake in the game say Irish American youth can suffer social anxiety and aggression issues by bullyish imagery.

[steve09ru]

Zaragone, try reading what I posted again (or Dan T's recent posts). There is a crucial distinction you're missing here (and it isn't subtle).

Hint: the dictionary has one definition of "redskin" and two definitions of "Oreo."

depends on the dictionary.  Here's a link to a couple that don't mention cookie for Oreo:

 

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/oreo

 

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/oreo

 

Redskins that include other additional information besides offensive:

 

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/redskin

 

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/redskin

 

The other thing to consider is that if the term Redskins was always offensive then why was it only changed recently in the dictionary to show this?

[Larry]

Is it your contention that "Redskins" does not always refer to a race?

 

Oh.  Missed the edit.  I must have been responding to the first version of the stupid argument. 

 

Is it your contention that the Washington Redskins are a race?