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

[BRAVEONTHEWARPATH93]

(This is a joke post btw. I'm terrified of physical combat)

[SkinsGuy]

Dammit.

*scrambles through remaining jokes*

Can we just set up a death match somewhere?

Im sure I can kick maybe 2% of your guys asses

This joke is confusing.

Are you saying that you can kick the ass of 2% of my guys or that you can kick 2% of their ass?

[Beygo]

A name change does not mean it's a whole new franchise, and offensive or not, I'll eat my hat the day the Elias Sports Bureau or the NFL or the Hall of Fame removes the name from history.

they will not stop printing the records, and they will show the name of the team as it was called when the record was set.

 

~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. 

[steve09ru]

It's been 267 pages and not once has a pro-name changer has responded to the Oreo comparison in an educational way.  It's been brought up time and time again by numerous members but gets ignored and looked over every time.  Just looking for an answer besides 'it's a crappy argument/analogy' because, frankly, it's a dead on comparison.

[BRAVEONTHEWARPATH93]

It's been 267 pages and not once has a pro-name changer has responded to the Oreo comparison in an educational way. It's been brought up time and time again by numerous members but gets ignored and looked over every time. Just looking for an answer besides 'it's a crappy argument/analogy' because, frankly, it's a dead on comparison.

....explain the Oreo thing because I'm missing it

I mean cuz Oreos are cookies. Like not people.

Redskin....I'm pretty sure refers to people

There's a difference

[steve09ru]

....explain the Oreo thing because I'm missing it

I mean cuz Oreos are cookies. Like not people.

Redskin....I'm pretty sure refers to people

There's a difference

Really?  I think it's been laid out a number of times already and is a single page back if you want to look at it. 

[BRAVEONTHEWARPATH93]

Really? I think it's been laid out a number of times already and is a single page back if you want to look at it.

Holy ****. This is a real defense people use. Ok. Wow. Damn. Wow.

Dude, an Oreo is a cookie. It's original use is a name for a cookie. People use it as a mean term. I've been called it a few times.

Redskin, unless I'm wrong, is a term that's always been used to describe people. Humans. Homo sapiens. Whether you think it's racist or not, I don't think you can dispute that.

That's a pretty huge difference.

[Larry]

....explain the Oreo thing because I'm missing it I mean cuz Oreos are cookies. Like not people.

Redskin....I'm pretty sure refers to people

There's a difference

I'm going to go out on a limb, here, and assume that you're asking an actual question, and not just trolling.

The word "Oreo" is also, rarely, used as a racial epitaph, to refer to a black person who is "black on the outside, white on the inside".

It's not (at least in my experience) used that way OFTEN. In fact, I've probably only heard it used that way probably twice or so, and both times on TV sitcoms or some such.

Ok just read your latest post. Yes, you were trying to present a stupid argument by disguising it as a stupid question.

Yes, you are correct. The words "redskin" and "Oreo" are not 100% identical.

(Neither are the word "redskin" and the n-word. I look forward to watching you insisting that no one is permitted to attempt to draw parallels between them).

[BRAVEONTHEWARPATH93]

I'm going to go out on a limb, here, and assume that you're asking an actual question, and not just trolling.

The word "Oreo" is also, rarely, used as a racial epitaph, to refer to a black person who is "black on the outside, white on the inside".

It's not (at least in my experience) used that way OFTEN. In fact, I've probably only heard it used that way probably twice or so, and both times on TV sitcoms or some such.

I'm black. I've been called it a few times. I just didn't think you guys were reaching hard enough to use that as an example

But go for it. Wow

[BRAVEONTHEWARPATH93]

I'll be the first to admit that both sides have compelling arguments in the name debate. I lean one way but I understand it's not cut and dry

But the Oreo defense you guys want to use ? Scratch that. That's awful

[steve09ru]

We're not reaching hard to use it as an argument.  The 'Redskins' argument is based off of the definition. 

 

Oreo's definition:

• derogatory

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

 

If you want to take the dictionary out of the argument then fine (not you specifically) but if you take it out of one words argument then you need to take it out of the other.

[BRAVEONTHEWARPATH93]

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

[Larry]

Actually, the word "Oreo" refers to people. And only to people.

According to the dictionary.

[Dan T.]

I would downplay the Oreo argument.  It's not helping the cause. 

[BRAVEONTHEWARPATH93]

Im sorry for the original posts btw. Those were a bit dickish. I'd rather keep the conversation civil

Actually, the word "Oreo" refers to people. And only to people.

According to the dictionary.

Is the Court stuff using the dictionary as a sticking point ? I'm honestly not sure

I

[ZRagone]

I would downplay the Oreo argument.  It's not helping the cause. 

 

1. You obvious don't care about the "cause" so your concern is rather transparent

 

2. Simply because you've been absolutely unable to articulate how the oreo dictionary argument and the redskins dictionary argument are ACTUALLY different doesn't mean it's "not helping the cause"

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

 

Thank you for actually offering up a reason why you feel the two can't be comparable; others seem to feel that simply their proclamation and opinion on the matter is somehow "evidence" for their position.

 

I recognize that Oreo's original use was for the name of a snack. However, that really doesn't address the issue of claiming "redskins" is a slur simply because the "dictionary says so".

[steve09ru]

But isn't the argument based off of current potential meaning and not the origin?  If so, then why is it ok for Oreo's definition to be derogatory yet ok but not Redskins?

[Dan T.]

"Cracker."  Same dif.

[ZRagone]

....explain the Oreo thing because I'm missing it

I mean cuz Oreos are cookies. Like not people.

Redskin....I'm pretty sure refers to people

There's a difference

 

Lemme give it a shot.

 

There's one line of argument from those who dislike the name that goes like this...

 

"If you look in a dictionary, the word redskin is clearly labeled and defined as a slur. Therefore, by DEFINITION, it is a slur."

 

The use of the term "oreo" is to point out the fact that Dictionaries do not include definitions of proper nouns. IE, there is generally not a a dictionary where one of the Definitions of "Redskin" would be "A player on the professional football team based out of Washington DC". Similarly, a dictionary including the word Oreo is unlikely to have one of it's definition being "A chocolate cookie with a crème inside".

 

Rather, most dictionaries will define "oreo" similar to what Merriam-Webster does:

 

"Oreo

 

noun Or·eo \ˈȯr-ē-(ˌ)ō, ˈär-\

Definition of OREOusually disparaging

:  a black person who adopts the characteristic mentality and behavior of white middle-class society"

 

Oreo is pointed out for a few reasons:

 

1. To show that the most COMMON usage of a word may NOT actually be found in the dictionary if it's a proper noun. Oreo, the COOKIE, is used far more often than oreo the disparaging remark. Similarly, Redskin, the FOOTBALL TEAM / PLAYERS, is used far more often than redskin the disparaging remark. Simply because the dictionary defines the word as such doesn't mean that's the "common" usage of the word in language.

 

2. To show that just because the dictionary defines a word as a slur does not indicate that its only use is as a slur. The dictionary does not provide definitions of proper nouns such as Oreo or Redskins. Yet no one would ever say that Oreo can ONLY be used as a means of slurring people. Similarly, it's unreasonable to suggest Redskins can not be used as anything other than a means of slurring people.

 

While the two words DO have significantly different origins, the comparison is not one dealing with "ORIGIN". It's dealing with the notion that attempting to proclaim the dictionary as some absolute authority on what the meaning of a word, or it's common usage, is fails when it relates to things that are proper nouns...such as the Redskins name as it relates to a football team.

 

If one's argument against the word "redskin" is based singularly, or substantially supported by, the notion that "The dictionary says it's a slur!" then the use of the "oreo" reference is to show the fact as to WHY the dictio

[steve09ru]

"Cracker."  Same dif.

I think you are kind of proving the point we are making.  Names have different meaning and interpretations to different people.  Many people are offended by the terms Cracker and Oreo but you don't see people making a push to change those because people are aware of the origins and what they are meant to display instead of the disparaging term they can be used as.

[ZRagone]

"Cracker."  Same dif.

 

Actually, it's not.

 

From Merriam-Webster, the definition of "Cracker" includes both:

 

"4

:  a dry thin crispy baked bread product that may be leavened or unleavened "

 

and

 

"5

a usually disparaging :  a poor usually Southern white"

 

The dictionary typically has a definition that refers to both, because "cracker" is a generic term for a crispy baked bread product. It's not like "Cracker" is a brand as opposed to the item itself (ala "Kleenex"), and thus you're using a proper noun.

[Dan T.]

1. You obvious don't care about the "cause" so your concern is rather transparent

 

2. Simply because you've been absolutely unable to articulate how the oreo dictionary argument and the redskins dictionary argument are ACTUALLY different doesn't mean it's "not helping the cause"

 

 

I'm not wedded to the cause. Believe or not, I'm not opposed to the cause either.  It's clear the passion some do have for the cause.  I understand that point of view, I really do. 

 

But even though I'm not a weatherman, I can see which way the wind blows. That doesn't mean I'm enjoying the breeze.

 

And I see Larry's point about "Oreo" and its parallel to "Redskin" as a proper noun and dictionary citation. But seriously, it's not a great weapon to wield in furthering the cause.  I think if it gets too much prominence and the anti-cause people pick up on it, the ridicule will hurt the cause.  Seriously.

[ZRagone]

To a certain degree I agree with you...and that's actually about a lot of the arguments.

 

The problem with many of the argument supporting the name is, strangely enough, they're actually a bit more academic/thought heavy in nature.

 

"It means native American SCALPS!" is MUCH easier and catchier for the public and for the media than a reasoned discussion about the linguistic origins.

 

"Dictionary says it's a slur, end of story" is far easier than actually delving into what dictionaries are actually seeking to define and how that impacts the notion of "Common usage" for a word.

 

"Native Americans are offended!" sounds much better and stirs emotions more so than actually taking the time to read and research and discover that most instances indicate that few actually are offended and most simply don't care.

 

In the sense that anything more than a 15 minute sound byte that one can take for gospel truth is largely tuned out by many within the population today and won't be given the time of day by many in the media, you're right...the oreo argument is a somewhat weak one, because without being able to actually explain and articulate the point of the argument it can be made to look rather foolish.  The sad thing is, most people only go off of sound bytes anymore.

[Larry]

I would downplay the Oreo argument.  It's not helping the cause. 

 

I would quit citing the dictionary as definitive proof that a usage which the dictionary is required to pretend, doesn't exist, is offensive. 

 

And then people won't have to point out the fact that dictionaries ignore proper nouns. 

[Dan T.]

I would quit citing the dictionary as definitive proof that a usage which the dictionary is required to pretend, doesn't exist, is offensive. 

 

And then people won't have to point out the fact that dictionaries ignore proper nouns. 

 

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.