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

[thebluefood]

So, we're staying with the whole dictionary thing, eh? 

[Larry]

I think something that's getting ignored and needs to be at the very forefront of the debate: IF it comes to light that the majority of Native Americans find the name offensive, most, if not virtually all, Redskins fans (myself included) would be the first to say "Yes, let's change it." All this nonsense about the Dictionary is getting us nowhere. It doesn't matter what sports writers or the Dictionaries have to say. The only opinion that really matters in this whole thing is that of Native Americans. 

 

Let me repeat: if it came to light that the majority of Native Americans (not people who claim to be 1/120 or whatever, mind you) found the name offensive, then we would have an obligation to change the name.

I would hope that it wouldn't even get to the point that it's a majority.

10 years ago, it was 9%. Me? I'd say if that number has doubled in 10 years, then it's time to punt.

(And it may have. I'd be a little surprised, but not completely shocked.)

[Commander PK]

Who states that it's an offensive disparaging and racial slang word that they have come to define it as such?  The FTC?  and where did the FTC get their information that it's all those things they listed?  

 

Who told them it was? What historical documents and data did they find to prove that it was?  

 

They just decided it was?  

 

Ok, who are they to decide for an entire race of people what is disparaging and disrespectful to them?

 

Maybe the "norms" don't apply in this case?

 

Why don't they apply in this case?  because the people who are supposed to be offended largely aren't offended that's why.  

 

You continuously ignore this fact over and over and over again.

and "slang" isn't always a bad thing either.  It can be a perfectly benign way of communicating with one another.  It did not say slur, it said slang which is not the same thing.

if somebody could prove to me with documentation or historical usage that the term itself was largely used as a slur as god as my witness I would change my mind on this topic RIGHT NOW.

 

JUST PROVE IT

I DEFY YOU TO PROVE IT

[grego]

do we understand that a word can be defined in a dictionary as derogatory, but at the same time celebrated and embraced as a positive term?

 

and that the derogatory definition of said word can be one that is seldom used, while the positive connotation is the one most commonly used?

 

World English Dictionary

Yankee or  ( informal ) Yank  (ˈjæŋkɪ)    — n 1. derogatory often  a native or inhabitant of the US; American

 

 

 

i understand that you could ask a native american if 'the word redskins is derogatory' (as in- 'can it be derogatory?), then ask if they 'are offended by the name of washingtons football franchise' (phrased like the annenberg poll) and get two different answers. 

 

maybe we could agree the context of the word actually determines its meaning, rather than viewing the word in a vacuum, where it can mean anything we want it to?

[Commander PK]

So you propose Wikipedia as the final arbitrator of this dispute? 

 

 

 

This case was heard by the FTC for weeks in 1999,  with two high priced advocates on each side of the discussion.    We certainly can cite the findings of that court without having to rehash every line of testimony.

 

NO, I consider it part of the equation.

 

and what was used besides testimony?  What tangible "hold it in your hand" evidence was presented that was conclusive?

[thebluefood]

I would hope that it wouldn't even get to the point that it's a majority.

10 years ago, it was 9%. Me? I'd say if that number has doubled in 10 years, then it's time to punt.

(And it may have. I'd be a little surprised, but not completely shocked.)

Yeah, I should have said "a large portion" instead of "majority." 

 

Still, I just want someone to come to the table and actually prove this is something that bugs the Native American community. No more guilt-ridden writers, no more fringe wing "spokespeople". Someone with a solid track record or a poll from a reputable pollster proving NA perception of the name has grown dramatically since '04. 

[Commander PK]

there is a reason why "eye witness" testimony is not always trustworthy without other tangible evidence to back it up, because people can look at the same thing sometimes, and see two completely different things.  There have been studies devoted to this exact thing.

 

Personal opinions, "stories passed down," sixty year old films where somebody states "get me a Redskin" or the like, does not prove that the term in and of itself is a derogatory slur.  

[JMS]

NO, I consider it part of the equation.

 

and what was used besides testimony?  What tangible "hold it in your hand" evidence was presented that was conclusive?

 

So that's your thought.   You don't like one of the tens of thousands of rulings of the Federal Trade Commissions Trademark Trial and Appeal Board;  So you want to review their rules of evidence.  and generally second guess them...

 

Next you will want to rewrite laws.

 

As I said that's pretty much a you thing.    But what you can't say,  is that the disparaging and offensive thing has not been proven.. It's been proven,  it is currently precedent.   You just don't agree with that precedent.

[Chew]

no offense....but i wish all these self-righteous white people in the media would stfu. 

 

I lived in South Carolina when the State Capital building flew the confederate flag.  As a black man it annoyed me, but I didn't care enough to picket outside or protest.  that **** didn't affect my life so i didn't give a ****. 

 

And I know I can't compare my feelings to anybody elses, because we all deal with things differently.  But for the hundreds of thousands of black people who lived in Columbia South, Carolina drove past the state capital bldg, it was basically a slap in the face.

 

But because it wasn't a trending topic on twitter, I didn't see Bob Costas talking about it.  punk ass cornball.

[JMS]

YYeah, I should have said "a large portion" instead of "majority."

 

That's the crux of the whole discussion...   Who and how large..   if we could focus the FTC on these issues we have a shot;   or if we can sneak Jumbo on the FTC board somehow.    Otherwise the fat lady has sung I'm afraid.

[Commander PK]

So that's your thought.   You don't like one of the tens of thousands of rulings of the Federal Trade Commissions Trademark Trial and Appeal Board;  So you want to review their rules of evidence.  and generally second guess them...

 

Next you will want to rewrite laws.

 

As I said that's pretty much a you thing.    But what you can't say,  is that the disparaging and offensive thing has not been proven.. It's been proven,  it is currently precedent.   You just don't agree with that precedent.

 

it has NOT been proven JMS.

 

What proves it?  The ruling proves it?  Does a finding of guilt always prove guilt?    I get the impression that you would not apply these standards to most other things in your life.  That is to say a "ruling" or "judgement" is the be all and end all of any topic.

 

Why do you do it here?

Without derailing the thread, but just as an example.  How many people believe George Zimmerman was guilty of murder?  

 

He was found not-guilty in a court of law right?  Should that not be the end of the discussion?  They found him not-guilty...so it's over?

Ask George Zimmerman if this is OVER for him.  

[Larry]

maybe we could agree the context of the word actually determines its meaning, rather than viewing the word in a vacuum, where it can mean anything we want it to?

Doubt it.

[ABQCOWBOY]

A lot of people had the same attitude toward civil rights activists in the 1950-60s.

 

Don't really agree with this.  Civil Rights were about actual equality issue in this country.  This is about the name of a Football Team.  One is a given right in this country, the other is a product that is sold.

 

I question the wisdom of forcing business to accommodate such things.  While many may believe that it is wrong, the masses should not have the power to tell people how they do business when it is their own money that is being invested.  If the issue is important enough, economics will solve the issue.  If it is important enough, the product will fall off because people will stop buying and that is the best way to see change. 

 

JMO

[Commander PK]

Don't really agree with this.  Civil Rights were about actual equality issue in this country.  This is about the name of a Football Team.  One is a given right in this country, the other is a product that is sold.

 

I question the wisdom of forcing business to accommodate such things.  While many may believe that it is wrong, the masses should not have the power to tell people how they do business when it is their own money that is being invested.  If the issue is important enough, economics will solve the issue.  If it is important enough, the product will fall off because people will stop buying and that is the best way to see change. 

 

JMO

My god...another one gets it.  God bless you sir.  Welcome aboard.

[Larry]

I disagree with the "discrimination should be legal, because the market will deal with it" claims.

Frankly, I'm not certain that the south wouldn't still be segregated, today, if that had been the rule. I think the evidence is pretty plain that at least AT THE TIME, businesses were under VASTLY more pressure, SUPPORTING discrimination.

I don't see a whole lot of market outrage forcing Chik-fil-a to stop discriminating against gays.

Yeah, I suspect that NOW DAYS, a business with a "whites only" sign on the door might hurt business. (Although it might help it some, too). But even today I suspect that if some business were to have a policy, say, of not hiring any blacks to wait on customers, I don't see a lot of people boycotting.

[Commander PK]

I disagree with the "discrimination should be legal, because the market will deal with it" claims.

Frankly, I'm not certain that the south wouldn't still be segregated, today, if that had been the rule. I think the evidence is pretty plain that at least AT THE TIME, businesses were under VASTLY more pressure, SUPPORTING discrimination.

I don't see a whole lot of market outrage forcing Chik-fil-a to stop discriminating against gays.

Yeah, I suspect that NOW DAYS, a business with a "whites only" sign on the door might hurt business. (Although it might help it some, too). But even today I suspect that if some business were to have a policy, say, of not hiring any blacks to wait on customers, I don't see a lot of people boycotting.

 

but that is not what he said.  Ultimately, what he said is the market will decide what is offensive, and if the people find it too offensive, it won't survive.  Simple supply and demand.  

 

the big difference here though Larry is laws were put in place expressly against that form of discrimination, and rightly so.  Are the Washington Redskins discriminating against Native Americans?  How so? 

 

You can't have a business that does any of those discriminatory things, by law.  However, it is perfectly legal to have a football team named the Washington Redskins.

 

again, this is not the same thing.

[Commander PK]

JMS talked about precedent being set with the FTC ruling.  

 

I say precedent was set in 1932 and has been in use since that time.  In order to force an 80 year old business to change it's name you better have something more than depositions in a hearing.

Honestly, I suspect some of you debating with me know that I'm right.  

 

You are just afraid.  You are afraid of what all this means and what might happen, so you are ready to just throw in the towel and be done with it.  

 

You are afraid of being called racist.  You are afraid of being on the wrong side of history.  Well if history can't prove that the term is offensive, unless we rewrite history, you can't be racist for standing behind it.

[grego]

 But even today I suspect that if some business were to have a policy, say, of not hiring any blacks to wait on customers, I don't see a lot of people boycotting.

 

 

hooters doesnt hire men to wait on customers. but i still go

[Predicto]

Of course it is.  The larger point is there is no consensus on the word.  

 

I'm not sure we can reach much of a conclusion from dictionaries at all, that has been my point all along...not in this case.  They are not all the same, even though universally now they are very similar...which again leads me to this  

 

I want to know what tangible evidence exists that shows the name to be offensive and disparaging beyond the modern opinions of some.  Seriously, is this too much to ask?  Cold hard facts?

 

 

 Here's a silent movie from 1929.  Skip to 27 minutes in.   Then to 102 minutes in.   

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k1kiNEAHcQA

 

I'm sure there are many more examples in the old movies.

[Commander PK]

again

 

When I see PROOF that a large percentage of Native Americans find the term offensive and disparaging.  

 

I will 100% get behind the name change.  The time will have come.  When/if the time comes.  

 

What would be proof?

 

*A new poll of Native Americans saying it's close to half and half, a split on the name.  (I.E. their attitudes in large percentage has changed on the name) 

 

*Schools dropping the name "Redskins" en masse.

 

*Protests where more than a gaggle of Native American protesters show up.  

 

*Historical evidence and documentation found that shows the term "Redskin" in and of itself was created and intended to be a derogatory slur towards Native Americans...AND a discrediting or disproving of existing evidence that shows the opposite.

[Predicto]

So, we're staying with the whole dictionary thing, eh? 

 

We can't just dismiss it out of hand, can we?   Whatever level of significance you give it, it does have SOME significance.

[thebluefood]

no offense....but i wish all these self-righteous white people in the media would stfu. 

 

I lived in South Carolina when the State Capital building flew the confederate flag.  As a black man it annoyed me, but I didn't care enough to picket outside or protest.  that **** didn't affect my life so i didn't give a ****. 

 

And I know I can't compare my feelings to anybody elses, because we all deal with things differently.  But for the hundreds of thousands of black people who lived in Columbia South, Carolina drove past the state capital bldg, it was basically a slap in the face.

 

But because it wasn't a trending topic on twitter, I didn't see Bob Costas talking about it.  punk ass cornball.

 

Couldn't agree more. Hell, it offends me more as a person from Washington, D.C., the capital of the union, than it does as a black man; but I still wouldn't go out and protest it. 

 

This whole thing smells of self-righteous pretentiousness. I don't really think most of these people give a damn about Native Americans. I don't think we'll be seeing them volunteering on Indian Reservations any time soon and after the name is changed, I don't think we're going to hear them breathe another word about Native Americans. 

 

As I've said time and time again, everyone wants to be Shirley Povich without actually having to take the chances he took. A lot of these sports writers want to be more important than they actually are. A lot of them seem more concerned about their reputations than their beats. 

[Predicto]

 

do we understand that a word can be defined in a dictionary as derogatory, but at the same time celebrated and embraced as a positive term?

 

and that the derogatory definition of said word can be one that is seldom used, while the positive connotation is the one most commonly used?

 

World English Dictionary

Yankee or  ( informal ) Yank  (ˈjæŋkɪ)    — n 1. derogatory often  a native or inhabitant of the US; American

 

 

 

i understand that you could ask a native american if 'the word redskins is derogatory' (as in- 'can it be derogatory?), then ask if they 'are offended by the name of washingtons football franchise' (phrased like the annenberg poll) and get two different answers. 

 

maybe we could agree the context of the word actually determines its meaning, rather than viewing the word in a vacuum, where it can mean anything we want it to?

 

 

Yankee is just like Hoosier, Sooner and Tar Heel.  The affected population adopted it as their own, thus pulling the teeth out of it.   If Native Americans affirmatively adopt redskin as their preferred nickname, so be it. 

no offense....but i wish all these self-righteous white people in the media would stfu. 

 

I lived in South Carolina when the State Capital building flew the confederate flag.  As a black man it annoyed me, but I didn't care enough to picket outside or protest.  that **** didn't affect my life so i didn't give a ****. 

 

And I know I can't compare my feelings to anybody elses, because we all deal with things differently.  But for the hundreds of thousands of black people who lived in Columbia South, Carolina drove past the state capital bldg, it was basically a slap in the face.

 

But because it wasn't a trending topic on twitter, I didn't see Bob Costas talking about it.  punk ass cornball.

 

this post totally confuses me.  

 

Are you arguing that the confederate flag should have continued flying there, because it didn't affect your life?  Or are you arguing that this is not quite as egregious a situation so no one should care?  Or are you arguing that Bob Costas should have talked about it back then (even though he pretty much only deals with sports issues)?  

 

Honestly, I suspect some of you debating with me know that I'm right.  

 

You are just afraid.  You are afraid of what all this means and what might happen, so you are ready to just throw in the towel and be done with it.  

 

You are afraid of being called racist.  You are afraid of being on the wrong side of history.  Well if history can't prove that the term is offensive, unless we rewrite history, you can't be racist for standing behind it.

 

Please don't question my motives and I won't question yours.  Deal?

[TheGoodBits]

This probably works here. Redskins.com blog is doing a series of posts for Native American Heritage Month. http://blog.redskins.com/2013/11/01/jim-thorpe-the-greatest-athlete-in-the-world/?campaign=redskinsdotcom13914794

[Commander PK]

At 27 minutes in

 

"after what I saw tonight (from the white people)...I'm proud to be a Redskin"

 

 

At 102 minutes in

 

In what context is the character using it?  "I am only a Redskin, thanks to your education."  

 

He is not saying the term Redskins in and of itself is insulting to him, he is saying that is not all he is.