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

[CrypticVillain]

The XFL should have a teamed called "The Yellow Fever" with Lucy Liu on the helmet.

I'm willing to catch Yellow Fever with Lucy Liu... Um just sayin' 

[grego]

predicto- 

 

i actually think youre doing a good job arguing the other side, and i dont have a problem with that. and i'm more of a listener and observer when i see these back and forth debates take place. i always learn something from them. 

 

i say that as a preface to two things, one of which is going to take us back to a point you recently made but i'm going to say it anyway. and that is, while nobody says the word 'redskins' in reference to anything but the football team and the potato, the same could be said for other names. (vikings, 49ers and probably a few i'm not thinking). you say vikings, you think of the football team. you say 49ers, you think of football team. dont want to go in circles regarding these things, but that was my first thought. 

 

anyway, like you said, those would be weird word to use indeed, unless we were referring to football teams. 

 

the second thing i wanted to say was in reference to the 'kernel of truth' of blackhorses' (and harjos) stand on the name. they are both on record as rejecting ives goddards findings that the name was invented by native americans, and benign- instead, they have substituted their own versions of the name asreferring to scalps.

 

this brings us to another point- whether or not anyone ever referred to the scalps of native americans as 'redskins'. does that change the argument? 

 

my feeling is, while i understand that they may have been told their version of the origin of the name, if its wrong, i have a hard time going to dan snyder and saying 'im offended' when the basis for your offense is misguided. it would seem goddards version is irrefutable- why blackhorse and harjo cling to their stories is understandable. while i share their disdain for the practice of scalping, i find it hard to go against goddards findings in this matter. he mentions harjo by name in his paper just a few paragraphs in, proclaiming her beliefs as 'unfounded' with regards to redskins referring to scalping. its actually surprising, to me, that he makes a point of saying her version is bogus. 

 

thats the issue i have when it comes to them and any kernel of truth. (personally, i believe their goals may be admirable- if they are attempting to improve native americans living conditions and bring attention to their plight, but i have come to believe their methods are questionable)

 

anyhow, nice job debating. thanks for keeping it sane. 

[elkabong82]

Larry, that is a counterpoint, but it is not a complete refutation of the original point.  

 

The fact that the word "redskin" is generally understood to be offensive outside the context of referring to the professional football team is relevant to the discussion of whether a professional football team is appropriate in using that word as their nickname.  

 

The fact that none of us would call a living Native American human being a "redskin" anymore is relevant to the discussion.  

 

It may not definitively resolve the question, but it is relevant.    

 

That point relies entirely on the belief that the dictionary definition is correct. Many times evidence has been shown throughout this thread that the name was coined by Native Americans and is not considered offensive by most of them. So the dictionary definition is wrong, or at least incomplete. The name was, at one time, used in an offensive manner, but before then it was used in a respectful manner and for a long time now it has been used in a respectful manner and not as a pejorative. 

 

If Redskin is "generally understood to be offensive" then why isn't there a huge outpouring of Native Americans saying so? Why does the Annenberg counter show 90% of Native Americans don't find it offensive? Why are there Native American schools with Redskins as the mascot too? In order to continue asserting that the dictionary definition is correct and that the term is generally considered offensive then you'd have to completely ignore these facts.

 

"You wouldn't call a Native American a Redskin" has been addressed in here already as well. Tell me, would you call any Native American you met a Brave or Chief? I doubt it. But none of those teams, nor Redskins, references today's Native American just as Vikings does not reference today's Scandinavians and Patriots does not reference today's Bostonians. The argument you make assumes that Redskins is offensive to Native Americans so calling them such would be offensive. But evidence, as mentioned above and throughout this thread, shows the majority are not offended, so calling one a Redskin would probably draw a perplexing look more so than offense. So the name doesn't work outside of football context not because it is offensive, because as is shown most Native Americans are not offended, but because it doesn't apply to them. Would you call an Irish person a Fightin' Irish? No. It doesn't fit. 

 

While the teams adopt names and mascots symbolic of a group of people, they representation is not of the every day but of the almost-mythical strongest, greatest qualities. The Buccaneers and Raiders don't represent murder and rape and theft, though that is exactly what those people did, but rather are meant to represent the strongest, fiercest, toughest qualities to translate to the football field. That is why you have the New England Patriots, not the Bostonians, why you have the Vikings, not the Scandinavians, why you have the Redskins, Braves, and Chiefs, not the Native Americans. That's why the mascots and symbolism are all of tough things, including warriors and weapons, and not every day people.

[Going Commando]

He did that for a reason. To show how ridiculous the anti Redskins crowd is being.

 

The article was full of straw men and specious arguments--arguments commonly used to defend the name.  That's why it unintentionally harmed the cause of defending the name.  It just laid a lot of flaws out there in one spot for people to pick apart.

 

NFL sports writers are terrible though, who pays attention to them anyway?

[Larry]

It's an artificial distinction, Larry.

 

Really?

Pointing out that just because a word, in one context, can me offensive, does not mean that it's always offensive, is "an artificial distinction"?

If that's true, then how come the people attacking the name have to keep changing the context? If the word always means the same thing, regardless of context, then why demand that everyone pretend that we're talking about a different context than the one we're actually talking about?

 

No team name exists in a vacuum, completely independent of the meaning from which it is derived and which it is deliberately intended to invoke.   That makes no sense at all.

 

Funny. I could have sworn that your dictionary attacks (and all of the other "let's pretend we're discussing some different context" attacks) were deliberately designed to remove the team name from "the meaning from which it is derived and which it is deliberately intended to invoke", via the technique of "let's pretend that we're talking about the word being used in some different way"

That is, unless you want to try to claim that "the meaning from which it is derived and which it is deliberately intended to invoke" was an archaic racial slur.

Good luck with that.

----------

You want a better example of the insanity of the "let's pretend we're discussing the word in some other context" attacks?

We've seen several people in this thread (or maybe it's one person, making the same claim multiple times. I haven't checked.) attempting to argue that "Well, the word 'colored' didn't used to be offensive, but now it is. Therefore any other word I want to attack is now offensive, too, simply because the word 'colored' has become offensive."

But despite the obvious problems with their attempt at argument, there is a fact underlying. Referring to black people as 'colored', today, is considered by almost everybody to be a racial slur.

I would bet that every dictionary you checked, for the word 'colored', would say that, when used to refer to a group of people (as opposed to some of the word's other meanings), is offensive.

The line to demand that the NAACP change their name, whether blacks find it offensive in that context or not, forms over there.

That is, unless you're willing to admit that maybe, a word can be offensive in one context, and not in another. That, to be more specific, perhaps using a word to refer to a certain group of people, by walking up to them and calling them that, might be offensive. But that using that name for almost 100 years to refer to an organization which does not in any way offend said people, and never has, might not be. (But, the inoffensive use of the word, won't show up in the dictionary.)

[Larry]

You are correct.  The logo is a Native American and the name "Washington Redskins" is intended to be a reference to Native Americans.   And yes, neither of them was or is intended to be dishonorable or disrespectful in any way by the team or by us fans, but that's not what I was talking about.  

 

I don't think it is reasonable to claim that the team name "Washington Redskins" has nothing to do with the corresponding archaic noun once used to refer to Native Americans (but not used much anymore in polite company).  You can't just define away the problem like that and pretend you are done.   sense at all.

Now, leaving aside your attempt to put words into other people's mouths, I think I'm seeing an argument, here, that I think makes some sense. I'm going to see if I'm summarizing it correctly.

I think your point is:

1) The football team was named "Redskins" back when redskin was a way of referring to what are now called Native Americans. At the time, the term wasn't offensive. In fact, it was meant (by the football team) to conjure up all kinds of mental images of noble manliness and things.

2) In short, the Redskins (capital R) were named after redskins (small R). In short, they were, at least, one word.

3) The small-r redskins is now interpreted as offensive.

I think I can get that reasoning. Am I correctly summarizing what you're saying?

I still see some problems with it.

(One of them is that yes, words evolve. But, when they evolve, that's one of the ways that one word becomes two. Kind of an "Origin of Species" thing. Some of a species evolves, and eventually you've got two species.)

(And, I'll point out, it's the small-r redskins that evolved to have a new meaning. The large-R Redskins still has exactly the same meaning that it always had.)

In other words, even if I didn't like her and didn't want her to win, I also don't want to be an Archie Bunker about this issue just because she is one of the people bringing it up and she wants go go further.

Rather agree with you. I'm not a fan of attacking a position simply because the chief spokesman for the idea may be a nut. It makes things personal, and it doesn't prove that the nut isn't right, this time.

[Larry]

this brings us to another point- whether or not anyone ever referred to the scalps of native americans as 'redskins'. does that change the argument?

I think I've read quotes, I think attributed to that Smithsonian historian, that there is no historical support to show that it was ever used that way.

Which, I think, is about as conclusive as you can get, with a question, like that. We don;t have volumes of data concerning whether some bounty hunter at the BFE trading post may or may not have ever used that term, verbally. All we have to go on are written documents, and only those documents that people thought were important enough to preserve.

So, IF the term redskins never shows up in those documents, it obviously doesn't mean it wasn't used verbally. Or even in records that weren't preserved.

----------

And, I'll admit, I'm not 100% certain that the claim (that the term was never used in writing) has even been made. I think I read it, but that's about as certain as I can be.

That point relies entirely on the belief that the dictionary definition is correct. Many times evidence has been shown throughout this thread that the name was coined by Native Americans and is not considered offensive by most of them. So the dictionary definition is wrong, or at least incomplete. The name was, at one time, used in an offensive manner, but before then it was used in a respectful manner and for a long time now it has been used in a respectful manner and not as a pejorative.

Well, dictionaries don;t list how words were used. They're supposed to document how they are currently used. If a term wasn't offensive, but it is now, then the dictionaries are supposed to list it as offensive.

(I assume that listing a term as "archaic" is a kind of exception to that.)

So, failing to say that 'redskin' (used to refer to a race) used to not be offensive doesn;t make a dictionary wrong.

But the limitation I point out is that dictionaries also don;t like proper nouns.

According to the dictionary, 'redskins' has never once been used to refer to a football team. Every time it gets used that way, they have to ignore it.

It's not a mistake. It's simply one of the rules of being a dictionary.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

Larry,

 

The OED actually does give you the history of the word, with an attempt to find the first usage ever. That's what makes it the OED. (As an aside, The Professor and the Madman is a truly excellent book. Highest LKB rating).

 

Look: as I said, the word is offensive. I don't know how you argue otherwise. The dictionaries say so. We all agree that we would never use it in normal conversation aside from talking about football.

 

The only argument to be made in support of the name is that in this very specific, very limited context of the football team located in the Washington, DC metro area.....the offensive word has been reclaimed and defanged. That is a solid argument - with an obvious danger. You first have to agree that the word is offensive, which is dangerous.

 

I haven't taken a stand one way or the other on whether the name should change. I think the change is inevitable, but I'm not going to lose sleep if it doesn't occur in my lifetime.

 

What I find objectionable is otherwise intelligent people tying themselves in knots to defend an obviously loaded worded.

 

Can we at least agree that the word is troublesome? Ticklish?

 

(For the record, I find the better racial equivalent to be "Darkie." Historically, that word was almost always something of a term of affection. It's interesting that it was never used as a team nickname).

[Going Commando]

I think what is offensive is to be defined by those it offends.

 

~Bang

That has always been the best argument in favor of keeping the name.

 

It seems that way at first glance, but it actually ends up involving at least two common logical fallacies: an appeal to authority and reification fallacy.

The problem is that it appeals to an authority that is not defined and does not actually exist. There is no accepted authority to ask. For one thing, there is no well defined, monolithic group of Native Americans out there to actually form this authority. Thus argument is effectively ended.

Let's even say you somehow acceptably defined what it means to be genetically Native American, gathered up all the people who meet that criteria, and asked them if Redskins is a slur, this still involves a reification fallacy that invalidates them as a proper and comprehensive authority to settle the question. Why should determining the nature of the usage of a taboo be restricted to a group based on genetic traits? How does having X genetic similarity to X population defined as "Native American" connect to being an authority on taboos? Taboos are abstract cultural concepts. Race is an abstract social construct, similar genetics do not bind a group into a social monolith capable of speaking as a single authority on a subject. It's an attempt to make an abstract into a concrete. There is a disconnect in claiming that abstract concept X about abstract group Y can be defined by concrete group Z.

Taboos for an entire population are not simply determined by X discrete group within that population that the specific taboo might refer to. If that were the case, then the thing wouldn't actually be taboo for the entire population.

You can use an analogy to uncover this through the common sense response it evokes: am I prohibited from feeling offended upon hearing someone call a black person a racial slur because I am not black? No.

I can understand that it is taboo for one person to use a slur referring to black people even though I am not black because the larger population that I belong to has determined that using slurs is taboo.

Lastly, formally defining and establishing the genealogy of taboos is practically difficult to the point of impossibility. Taboos are abstracts and generally nebulous by nature. They tend to be based on popular usage, which changes over time.

I think the motivation behind making the argument Bang and many many many others have made is usually to stop argument (and thus defend the status quo) by requiring impossible standards of proof. And it's only going to remain effective while public opinion remains largely immobilized on this particular issue. We'll see what happens, but my personal sense is that the seas are changing outside of Redskins-land.

[nonniey]

Larry, that is a counterpoint, but it is not a complete refutation of the original point.  

 

The fact that the word "redskin" is generally understood to be offensive outside the context of referring to the professional football team is relevant to the discussion of whether a professional football team is appropriate in using that word as their nickname.  

 

The fact that none of us would call a living Native American human being a "redskin" anymore is relevant to the discussion.  

 

It may not definitively resolve the question, but it is relevant.

What your you're not taking into account is even a true Racist (let's say in the Nazi mold) wouldn't use the term Redskin while attacking a Native American, because it just isn't used as a derogatory term today. (The dictionaries need updated and corrected).

[Larry]

Look: as I said, the word is offensive. I don't know how you argue otherwise.

Because me, 90% of Native Americans, and 80% of all Americans say it isn't?

Just a thought.

The dictionaries say so.

No. They don't.

Show me the dictionary that says:

Redskin. (Offensive) a professional football team.

They say it CAN BE offensive, when used in a certain way.

Unfortunately, that certain way, isn't the way we're discussing.

We all agree that we would never use it in normal conversation aside from talking about football.

Now, you've said something that's true. You're right. Neither you, nor I, nor anybody else ever uses it for anything insulting whatsoever.

(Well, I assume that somewhere, somebody used it offensively, once. I'm exaggerating. But only a tiny bit.)

The only argument to be made in support of the name is that in this very specific, very limited context of the football team located in the Washington, DC metro area.....the offensive word has been reclaimed and defanged.

" this very specific, very limited context"?

" this very specific, very limited context" probably accounts for 99.99% of the words usage! And 100% of what we're discussing.

The team's name IS the words usage, and has been, probably for my lifetime.

(That's why those dictionaries you keep pointing at, keep telling you that the specific, very limited context that you're frantically trying to pretend is the word's sole usage is ARCHAIC.).

And the term hasn't been "reclaimed and defanged". The name of the football team has NEVER BEEN offensive. Not the day the team was named, nor at any time thereafter. There's nothing to reclaim.

[nonniey]

. . . is completely irrelevant to the discussion of whether it's offensive in the context of the professional football team.

 

The word "boy" is offensive, when used in the sentence "You got a problem with your hearing, boy?" 

 

The line to demand that "The Boy Scouts" change their name, because it's a racial insult, forms over there. 

 

You looked up the dictionary definition of the word "oreo"? 

 

I suspect that very few of us would call a black man "oreo" to his face, either.  (Although, some of our members, if they're talking about Obama, I'm not so certain of.) 

 

This proves that referring to a Double Stuff cookie is offensive, exactly how? 

 

----------

 

The topic of discussion, is "Is the phrase 'The Washington Redskins' offensive?" 

 

Not "is it possible to use the word 'Redskin' in an offensive sentence?" 

 

And all of this "well, let's pretend that the question is something else" is simply a way of avoiding the unchallenged fact that the answer to the question being discussed is "No".

Just want to point out Larry that "oreo" like Uncle Tom, is a racist term used by the left. I'm pretty sure no one on this Board would use it when referencing this President.

[Larry]

I think the motivation behind making the argument Bang and many many many others have made is usually to stop argument (and thus defend the status quo) by requiring impossible standards of proof. And it's only going to remain effective while public opinion remains largely immobilized on this particular issue. We'll see what happens, but my personal sense is that the seas are changing outside of Redskins-land.

So, when the argument is:

"The term is offensive".

"The vast majority of people (both the people supposedly insulted, and the people as a whole) say it isn't".

Then the SECOND person is "requiring impossible standards of proof"?

[Going Commando]

The only argument to be made in support of the name is that in this very specific, very limited context of the football team located in the Washington, DC metro area.....the offensive word has been reclaimed and defanged. That is a solid argument - with an obvious danger. You first have to agree that the word is offensive, which is dangerous.

Yes. Dangerous because it's an argument appealing to tradition, a logical fallacy. So you're really just subject to the tides of popular opinion and all it takes is for popular opinion to decide its no longer appropriate for the Redskins to enjoy an exception to the taboo nature of the word. Which is exactly what I think is happening.

I think it's only a question of how long before the name has to be changed. Personally, I don't think the issue is worth fighting over. I'd change it to something positive and iconic about some aspect Native American culture that celebrates it in a thoughtful and harmless way. I'd try and get out in front of the issue, use it as an impetus to get to work rebranding the franchise and building goodwill to try and create a stronger brand.

[elkabong82]

Yes. Dangerous because it's an argument appealing to tradition, a logical fallacy. So you're really just subject to the tides of popular opinion and all it takes is for popular opinion to decide its no longer appropriate for the Redskins to enjoy an exception to the taboo nature of the word. Which is exactly what I think is happening.

I think it's only a question of how long before the name has to be changed. Personally, I don't think the issue is worth fighting over. I'd change it to something positive and iconic about some aspect Native American culture that celebrates it in a thoughtful and harmless way. I'd try and get out in front of the issue, use it as an impetus to get to work rebranding the franchise and building goodwill to try and create a stronger brand.

 

That won't stop the lawsuits. As long as the team keeps Native American theme and imagery, Harjo et al. will sue, and have said so. They won't even accept Warriors.

 

Seeing as the vast majority of Native Americans aren't offended by it and really it is a small minority pushing for a change the majority does not want, yeah I think the issue is worth fighting over. Certainly the minority has been given a voice by the media, don't the majority of Native Americans who disagree with name change proponents deserve a voice and to have people on their side, rather than just people speaking FOR them, telling them what is supposed to be offensive to them, and others simply going along with it because those people are putting up a big fuss?

[Going Commando]

Larry, on 20 Sept 2013 - 23:25, said:

So, when the argument is:

"The term is offensive".

"The vast majority of people (both the people supposedly insulted, and the people as a whole) say it isn't".

Then the SECOND person is "requiring impossible standards of proof"?

Who is your authority that you're referring to here to make the claim that such a majority exists on the nature of the taboo? You've been citing specific numbers in the thread, are you referring chiefly to the Annenberg poll? If so, requiring a better standard of proof than that poll is hardly an impossible standard of proof.

[Going Commando]

elkabong82, on 20 Sept 2013 - 23:43, said:

That won't stop the lawsuits. As long as the team keeps Native American theme and imagery, Harjo et al. will sue, and have said so. They won't even accept Warriors.

Seeing as the vast majority of Native Americans aren't offended by it and really it is a small minority pushing for a change the majority does not want, yeah I think the issue is worth fighting over. Certainly the minority has been given a voice by the media, don't the majority of Native Americans who disagree with name change proponents deserve a voice and to have people on their side, rather than just people speaking FOR them, telling them what is supposed to be offensive to them, and others simply going along with it because those people are putting up a big fuss?

The vulnerability of the Redskins name stems from the fact that the wider meaning of the word is pejorative. It's archaic and has absolutely no other non-pejorative usage outside the team name. That's not the case with an innocuous and widely used word like warriors.

The fact is that the small groups that would object to Native American iconography/history being used by the team simply could not rally enough popular support against a word/iconography with wide, non-pejorative usage. Popular opinion would see them as an insignificant fringe that can be found on every issue under the sun, and would ignore them.

[pjfootballer]

N/M

[aREDSKIN]

The vulnerability of the Redskins name stems from the fact that the wider meaning of the word is pejorative. It's archaic and has absolutely no other non-pejorative usage outside the team name. That's not the case with an innocuous and widely used word like warriors.

The fact is that the small groups that would object to Native American iconography/history being used by the team simply could not rally enough popular support against a word/iconography with wide, non-pejorative usage. Popular opinion would see them as an insignificant fringe that can be found on every issue under the sun, and would ignore them.

 

The difficulty with you assertion here is that the only contex the word "Redskins" is used today is NON-PERJORATIVE. Sure at some point in time some may have used it as a perjorative and some used it as a self identifier. The FACT remains that only the Federal Trademark commission will decide this. Not any fringe group complete with feigned outrage and false narratives. The meaning of words change as your "archaic" assertion demonstrates above. Only the people who wish to score "political" points try to present false narratives to bamboozle the less inclined to care.

[Larry]

Who is your authority that you're referring to here to make the claim that such a majority exists on the nature of the taboo? You've been citing specific numbers in the thread, are you referring chiefly to the Annenberg poll? If so, requiring a better standard of proof than that poll is hardly an impossible standard of proof.

1). Yes, I'm citing (as far as I'm aware) the ONLY attempt to actually ask Native Americans if they're offended by the name. (90% of them said "no".)

2). And I will point out that the phrase "an impossible standard of proof" came from the person I was replying to. (That would be you.). The one claiming that requiring THE PLAINTIFFS, when claiming that the term is offensive, to actually demonstrate that it offends people, was requiring THE PLAINTIFFS to meet "an impossible standard of proof".

[Rocky21]

http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/9689220/redskins-name-change-not-easy-sounds

 

Best Reilly I've read in years. 

[grego]

http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/9689220/redskins-name-change-not-easy-sounds

 

Best Reilly I've read in years. 

 

a little late, rocky

 

but i agree with you, even if most "sportswriters" dont. 

[ManleyMann7271]

you know that activists like amanda blackhorse want names like 'warriors' abolished too.

 

what then?

 

I think that this is the best part about the whole mess.  They have made up this false history of Redskins being a racial slur so when they finally win and the team is forced to change the name they are screwed.  The team will almost assuredly pick the name Warriors, Snyder already purchased it back when he thought he lost the first time around, then Blackhorse and Harjo will have to come back and say that it wasn't enough that we changed from Redskins.  Their public support will all but vanish.  

[Commander PK]

I thought of a couple in honor of the "Spirit of the Salary Cap" Penalty. 

 

How about the Washington "**** Mara's"

 

or the Washington "Spirit Violaters"

 

our emblem could be a a simple drawing.  A colorless outline of a hand giving the middle finger. 

 

 

 

I also thought the Reilly article was fantastic.  I wanted to post it here, but I'm late to the party it seems. 

[VinnyIsThatYou?]

First, I'm not on some crusade to convince ignorant people here on the matter. Second, I didn't even mention what I think it represents so not sure why you're referencing your lame good ole boy stereotype. I was just pointing out a BS post because the same cliched lines (not even arguments) are repeated over and over, and opinions are presented as facts. My whole points was (and still is), Who the hell are you to make definitive claims on what a flag represents, and what people are thinking inside their heads when they rep it?  

 

The blonde chick at Ole Miss with the rebel battle flag on her Macbook is not dreaming of bringing back slavery, nor is she feigning ignorance. The rebel flag is repped hard in the South. You're telling me everyone who reps it is a white supremacist or pro-slavery?   

 

Like I told the last guy, I don't care what you think it represents. You are not the authority on it, and have no ties to it. I'm sure al-qaeda thinks the American flag represents oppression, violence, satan, and other bad things. Doesn't mean they're right, just means they're idiots with misinformed opinions. People that are gullible, like yourself, eat up whatever's told to them and hold onto to ideas they grasped earlier in life.

 

You aren't even putting forth an argument, you're just repeating tired lines. Tired lines and baseless arguments that kids in middle school social studies class use when discussing the topic. "It's bad because it means slavery!!!" LOL.

 

I'm sure people who were the target of one (apparently) of the many things that flag stood for, weep at the fact that you're offended. Give me a ****ing break.

 

Here's what I think of when I see that flag waving... Slavery, Pro Secession, racial intolerance, white supremacy. And if whoevers flying it isn't flying it with any of that in mind, then to me, it's basicaly like feigning igorance, which is insulting.

 

You're not going to have very much success trying to convince everyone that all it stands for is a "Good Ol' kind hearted Southern Boy" that likes to kick back and swig down beers and watch Nascar.