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

[RFKFedEx]

I enjoyed that read Predicto. Seems like Ross hit on most of the points we've seen here over the past year.

[Commander PK]

 

i realize i take a hard line on this issue. but i dont take one out of blind tradition, or fear of having something taken from me, or ignorance. i'm well aware of the issues surrounding the name- much more so than the kornheisers or bayless' who are in the business and ought to know better. 

 

 

I agree, and as I have already stated in this thread.  At some point, the Natives themselves in great numbers may decide the name should go.  If/when that happens...it is what it is, and I would be able to live with their decision.

 

What I can't stand, is uniformed moronic "racist!" "racist!" "racist!" coming from idiots who don't take the time to actually present any facts, do any research, or talk to anybody who they are supposed to be yelling about.  Taken on face value, the name appears to be offensive, but you can't just throw something out on face value without facts or a strong base built on tangible and credible information. 

 

Information which as of yet has not been presented.  Prove the name is offensive and disparaging.  Show me evidence Native Americans at large and in large percentage are offended. 

[Commander PK]

I believe I asked this question earlier in the thread, and I never received an answer....so I will try a different way. 

 

Is simply referring to somebody by their skin tone inherently racially insensitive, even if the people in question at large don't mind?  What if these people simply see it as an acknowledgement of fact? 

 

Just like me.  I am white.  People who look at me, would most certainly recognize me to be a white man. 

 

I don't mind, nor do I care.  Is it so unreasonable to believe that many Natives may feel the same way?  Yes, compared to people of other races, my skin is red.  So what? 

[chipwhich]

As an aside, I just read this great piece on the issue by a Native American writer.  I found it quite compelling.

 

    http://deadspin.com/redskins-a-natives-guide-to-debating-an-inglorious-1445909360

 

My problem with the whole thing is growing up in Maryland, I have never heard the term Redskin used as a derogatory term towards an American Indian.

I haven't even interfaced with American Indians that I know of other than maybe when visiting relatives in Arizona.

So I can't relate.  Which I suppose is a lot of the reasons others can't relate.

As far as the "N" word argument in the article, I did go to a predominately black high school, Largo High, in Prince Georges County, home of the Redskins Right up the street from FedEx field.  The "N" word was ok if you were a cool "white" boy and not ok if you were a redneck "white" boy when I was in High School.  I still see it used today by "white" boys in High School that are "cool" as a term of affection.  Once you graduate, then it becomes a societal ill.  As an adult "white" boy it's not allowed.  Little Wayne lyrics he calls white people crackers.  Nobody rants about that.

 

There is so much offensive stuff done in todays society, I hardly feel like the name Redskins is even near the top of the list.  It would be low on my list of things I wish society changed.  But hey, I am just a "white" boy, I can't have feelings on the matter.

To me it's just a media driven issue, AND it's people looking for a payout.  But if I were to meet people really hurt by the name, I would change my mind.  I wouldn't use the term blackskins, but I could also talk to people whose feelings were hurt.  Which include family members.  Who are black.

[Spearfeather]

i love her. hope the media actually takes two seconds to ask her about her position. probably wont though....

 

 

 

http://dailycaller.com/2013/10/30/anti-redskins-activist-confronted-by-tribe-advocate-at-press-conference/

 

An ugly scene ensued at New York's Marriott Marquis as New York Assemblywoman Claudia Tenney confronted Halbritter over his mistreatment of genuine members of the Oneida Indian Nation, which Halbritter leads as a profit-driven casino oligarch.

 

 

“I asked him, ‘how are you qualified to be a spokesperson for the Native American people? You’re talking about civil rights, and you’re throwing away my client’s civil rights,”" Assemblywoman Claudia Tenney told The Daily Caller.

 

Tenney’s legal client Melvin Phillips, 76, is a full-blooded Oneida who will be evicted from his ancestral land if a deal struck between Halbritter, New York governor Andrew Cuomo, and a New York Oneida County executive goes through. Halbritter previously evicted his own aunt Maisie, who opposed his tribal leadership.

 

Tenney has a meeting scheduled with NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell Friday to state her case.

 

[elkabong82]

I enjoyed that read Predicto. Seems like Ross hit on most of the points we've seen here over the past year.

'

He started out with a good presentation of the nuances of both sides of the issue, but his article fell apart when he also used the incorrect blackskin analogy, mentioned high schools with NA themes but then ignores Redskins as a used name when saying black people wouldn't use negro as a team name, then he also brings up the scalping myth with the same false source, and he constantly compares Redskins to the n word even though he states in the beginning there isn't a consensus among NAs or anywhere near it as to the offensiveness of the word. As checkered as Marshall's past was, there is no way he would have ever named his team the n words, even if he thought he could get away with it, so certainly he wouldn't have named his team the NA equivalent of it. The writer's claim of NA voicelessness in the team name also ignores the history with Dietz and NA players for us when we first took on the name and ignores who designed the Indian head logo.

 

He also says that most NAs don't care about the issue, but then also says they are being deprived of a voice in the matter after admitting that the voice is one of indifference. He offers no suggestions as to how those voices can be heard or expressed.

 

He claims a bunch of black people say it can't be racist because black people are wearing the jerseys. Umm, where has that been said by anyone?

 

I'm not sure how you could enjoy that read with so many fallacies in it. The opening part looking at both sides was compelling, his reasons for his stance opposed were not. Seems more like he tried to pass himself off as indifferent so he would come off as impartial, but then relied on incorrect analogies and even false evidence to take a stance that was not indifferent. He is stating the majority of NAs are indifferent to the team name, yet liken it to the n word. If that were true, then that indifference would not exist and certainly in not such a large volume. He basically affirms that among NAs it is mostly a non-issue, and if that is indeed the case then it is not akin to the n word and the name shouldn't change.

 

Also, I still keep seeing the dictionary brought up, as if it is gospel. So I'll ask: what evidence are the dictionaries using? There certainly is no consensus among NAs where "usually offensive" would be accurate, and many of them use the red face paint as the origin which is also wrong. Too many are taking it at face value simply because "it's the dictionary." 

[Larry]

As I have said, I think the name is an anachronism.  It was not intended to be a slur when it was first used by the team, and we don't mean to be rude now, but times have changed and that particular word really kind of is a slur now in 2013 whether we like it or not (as reflected in multiple dictionary definitions) and I don't think we can separate the general current understanding of the word "Redskin" from the team name as easily as Larry believes we can.

All of which says that the word "Redskin", in the team name, is very analogous to the word "colored", in the name of the NAACP.

But, in the case of the latter, everybody knows that they aren't using that word as a racial slur, it just evolved that way, so they get a pass. Everybody agrees that the word isn't insulting in that context.

[Major Harris]

All of which says that the word "Redskin", in the team name, is very analogous to the word "colored", in the name of the NAACP.

But, in the case of the latter, everybody knows that they aren't using that word as a racial slur, it just evolved that way, so they get a pass. Everybody agrees that the word isn't insulting in that context.

 

i thought it was established that a group of people can call themselves whatever they want, but that doesn't give a free pass to everyone else. 

 

just devils advocate here, i am in the keep it camp.

[Larry]

Also, I still keep seeing the dictionary brought up, as if it is gospel. So I'll ask: what evidence are the dictionaries using? There certainly is no consensus among NAs where "usually offensive" would be accurate, and many of them use the red face paint as the origin which is also wrong. Too many are taking it at face value simply because "it's the dictionary."

In defense of the dictionaries, they're hampered by an inherent rule of dictionaries.

They don't define proper nouns.

So, when they're defining the word "redskin", (small R), they are required, by their own rules, to pretend that the word never refers to a football team.

Pretend that some day, the NFL wins a court case, and the result is a ruling that says Google is not allowed to list any web page links for "redskin" that refer to the football team.

If you're Google, and you take all of the times the word "redskin" appears on the internet, and you throw out all the times it refers to the team, then how many of the "hits" are offensive?

 

I don't doubt that, if you ignore all of the times it refers to the team, (or the potato), then look at what's left, then yep, a good chunk of them are offensive.  (I certainly assume that somewhere out there, somebody has occasionally used it in an offensive way.  And, if you are required to ignore all of the references to the football team (and the potato), then those incredibly rare cases are what's left.) 

 

[Larry]

i thought it was established that a group of people can call themselves whatever they want, but that doesn't give a free pass to everyone else. 

 

just devils advocate here, i am in the keep it camp.

 

Ah, but now we're in the land of "well, you have to consider the context in which a word is used". 

 

Which then torpedoes what I think of as virtually every one of the methods used to attack the name, all of which boil down to "Let's not talk about whether the phrase 'The Washington Redskins' is offensive.  Instead, let's take that word "redskin', move it into this other context that I've created, show that it's offensive over here, and then claim that if it's offensive over here, then it must be offensive over there, too." 

 

In short, the argument that the word 'redskin' is always offensive, because it can be offensive. 

 

(It also allows me to point out that even 'the n-word' can be used, commercially, and not be offensive.  Ask Mel Brooks.)

[grego]

http://dailycaller.com/2013/10/30/anti-redskins-activist-confronted-by-tribe-advocate-at-press-conference/

 

 

that is outstanding. laughing my ass off at this clown.

'

He started out with a good presentation of the nuances of both sides of the issue, but his article fell apart when he also used the incorrect blackskin analogy, mentioned high schools with NA themes but then ignores Redskins as a used name when saying black people wouldn't use negro as a team name, then he also brings up the scalping myth with the same false source, and he constantly compares Redskins to the n word even though he states in the beginning there isn't a consensus among NAs or anywhere near it as to the offensiveness of the word. As checkered as Marshall's past was, there is no way he would have ever named his team the n words, even if he thought he could get away with it, so certainly he wouldn't have named his team the NA equivalent of it. The writer's claim of NA voicelessness in the team name also ignores the history with Dietz and NA players for us when we first took on the name and ignores who designed the Indian head logo.

 

 

agreed. some actual facts in there, followed by bad arguments. kind of a bummer. 

[JMS]

 

Here a dictionary definition too- JMS's flacid arguments just are just less than cogent.

 

Word Origin & History

redskin

"American Indian," 1699. Red as the skin color of Native Americans is from 1587; red man is from 1587.

Online Etymology Dictionary, © 2010 Douglas Harper

Cite This Source

 

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/redskin?s=t

 

 

   That isn't a definition...  That's the words origin... It's clearly marked...  Here are the definitions given  by your link!

 

first definition from your link

 

 

red·skin

/ˈrɛdˌskɪn/  Show Spelled [red-skin]  Show IPA

noun Slang: Often Disparaging and Offensive.

a North American Indian.

Origin:

1690–1700, Americanism; red¹ + skin

 

Dictionary.com Unabridged

Based on the Random House Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2013.

 

 

second definition given from your link

 

redskin (ˈrɛdˌskɪn)   — n  

an old-fashioned informal name, now considered taboo, for a Native American

 

Collins English Dictionary - Complete & Unabridged 10th Edition

2009 © William Collins Sons & Co. Ltd. 1979, 1986 © HarperCollins

Publishers 1998, 2000, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2009

 

 

Here are a few other definitions

 

 

Oxford English Dictionary

redskin

Pronunciation: /ˈrɛdskɪn/

 

noun dated or offensive

• an American Indian.

 

 

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/english/redskin?q=redskin

 

 

 

 

American Heritage Dictionary

 

red·skin

(rĕdskĭn′)

Share: red·skin

n.

Offensive Slang

Used as a disparaging term for a Native American.

http://ahdictionary.com/word/search.html?q=redskins

[Bang]

Jeez.. still with the dictionary.

Could there be a more narrow approach?

~Bang

[JMS]

Is simply referring to somebody by their skin tone inherently racially insensitive, even if the people in question at large don't mind?  What if these people simply see it as an acknowledgement of fact? 

 

Why not go down to DC and start reffering to folks as blackskins... or just blacky...  Hey blacky what's kicking?   Hey blacky what time you got?

 

Or go to some elementary school and reffer to the asian kids as yellow skins...  "what a cute yellow child"...   "Hey yellow skin, where is your teacher"....

 

Or if you are really brave go to the country of origin... say Japan....

 

Yes it's absolutely disparaging to reffer to somebody by the color of their skin.   The fact that you don't mine folks calling you whitie is a self serving and specious data point...     Why?   Because as a white person you aren't subject historically to the same types of pursecutions commited against minorities.  

[grhqofb5]

   That isn't a definition...  That's the words origin... It's clearly marked...  Here are the definitions given  by your link!

 

first definition from your link

 

Yeah, saw that too. It's like some people shouldn't make arguments when they can be very easily refuted.  The dictionary definitions are undisputed.  They also have nothing to do with whether the name "Redskins" is offensive.

 

The best way to determine if a term is offensive is to find out if people are offended by it.

[steve09ru]

I look at it this way, Redskin, according to the Oneida's, was used to describe the scalping.  Redskins, also applies to a group of people.  Which one are the Washington Redskins representing, the group of people or the scalping?  I'll give you a hint, our logo is not a blade, scalp and blood.

[JMS]

Jeez.. still with the dictionary.

Could there be a more narrow approach?

~Bang

 

 

Actually if you read the post I was responding to another poster who incorrectly posted an origin rather than the dictionary definition he presented..

.

But thanks for the consistant monotone dismissal which does not move the conversation forward or cover the fact that the disparaging definition of the word is the most cited definition of the word in every reputable dictionary I looked in.

[RedskinsFan44]

I look at it this way, Redskin, according to the Oneida's, was used to describe the scalping.  Redskins, also applies to a group of people.  Which one are the Washington Redskins representing, the group of people or the scalping?  I'll give you a hint, our logo is not a blade, scalp and blood.

The scalping tie has been discredited.  The Deadspin article claims it exists using a historical newspaper article which refers to NAs as redskins, not the scalps  - though that reference is certainly one where redskin is used in a negative manner.

[Bang]

Actually if you read the post I was responding to another poster who incorrectly posted an origin rather than the dictionary definition he presented..

.

But thanks for the consistant monotone dismissal which does not move the conversation forward or cover the fact that the disparaging definition of the word is the most cited definition of the word in every reputable dictionary I looked in.

.. and he pulled out the dictionary because...

AGAIN.. this conversation moved beyond this months ago.

You want to move the conversation or participate in it, go back and read and catch up.

The dismissal comes from having been through these hoops already. Numerous times.

But, it does illustrate one common theme that we'vbe had here these last few months in regard to this debate; Those who want the name changed continue to stand on the same old tired reasoning and refuse to educate themselves on the entirety of the matter and form their opinion based on the whole, rather than a narrow pigeon-hole framed by a small minded minority.

Maybe we can go back over how a writer or two used it as a slur 150 years ago.

we've only done that a few dozen times.

~Bang

[GibbsFactor]

AP VIDEO: Oneida Indian nation requests meeting with all 32 #NFL owners: http://apne.ws/1h249yx  #Redskins

[JMS]

In short, the argument that the word 'redskin' is always offensive, because it can be offensive. 

 

(It also allows me to point out that even 'the n-word' can be used, commercially, and not be offensive.  Ask Mel Brooks.)

 

(1) The term doesn't "ALWAYS" have to be offensive to everybody on earth to fall under the premises of "disparaging".

(2) The N word is generally offensive.   It's used in comedy because it's offensive, and shocking... 

(3)  You not being offended, or not trying to offend doesn't change the fact that the word was and is primarily a racial slur.

(4) The FTC has already ruled as such.

[JMS]

But, it does illustrate one common theme that we'vbe had here these last few months in regard to this debate; Those who want the name changed continue to stand on the same old tired reasoning and refuse to educate themselves on the entirety of the matter and form their opinion based on the whole, rather than a narrow pigeon-hole framed by a small minded minority.

Maybe we can go back over how a writer or two used it as a slur 150 years ago.

we've only done that a few dozen times.

~Bang

 

Well if you went over the historical and current popular definition on the term months ago then you must have a good answer to the fact the definition of the term Redskins is a racial slur.    But you don't, so evidently you didn't cover issue....

 

And what is tired and ignorant is the cascade of interdependent false arguements presented in series to drown out all attempts at a realistic discusson on the issue.

 

1. That whether an Indian first coined the term or not is pertenent to the discussion of whether the term is offensive historically or presently...... FALSE
2. That if the term reffers to a scalped Indian or skin color makes a difference of whether the term is offensive.... FALSE
3. The name never was a ratial slur.....    FALSE
4. It was a racial slur but it's not defined as one today.......FALSE
5. It is a racial slur today but we aren't using it that way so we are exempt from the Trademark clause against copywriting disparaging terms...  FALSE
6. Those against the Trademarked Redskins name  have never proved the term was a racial slur in front of the FTC...  FALSE
7. The FTC has never vacated the Redkins trademark.  ... FALSE
8. The lower court which overturned the FTC's ruling reversed the fact that the FTC found the term offensive ...  FALSE
9. That because skins fans aren't offended nobody else has a right to be.....   FALSE

[Bang]

Please. Read the thread.
You'll learn more about what everyone in this debate believes and says than reading the dictionary.
There really is no sense in re-doing all of this.
 

 

• That because skins fans aren't offended nobody else has a right to be.....   FALSE

 

See, if you'd read, those of us arguing regularly in this thread that would like to keep the name are simply saying that the majority of actual natives asked have said they like the name, and regardless of fan-hood, we think that you should actually listen to them, rather than squalling from on top of Mount Righteous about what you think they ought to feel.

Thisc is the crux.
These people are the ones in question, and you straight up ignore them, and so does everyone else in this 'movement'. TRUE

 

So while it makes it easy for you to just assume we're all racists or whiners who don't want anyone to take away our binky, the truth of the matter is entirely different.

Which you'd know by reading all of our comments starting from post #1.

 

but .. it seems that not listening to what people say before telling them they're wrong is par for the course in this issue.

 

~Bang

[GibbsFactor]

Here's a guy that's put a lot of effort into a re-branding scheme to the name of Redhawks.

 

http://www.behance.net/gallery/Washington-Redhawks-Brand-Proposal/11458543

[JMS]

So while it makes it easy for you to just assume we're all racists or whiners who don't want anyone to take away our binky, the truth of the matter is entirely different.  Which you'd know by reading all of our comments starting from post #1.

 

but .. it seems that not listening to what people say before telling them they're wrong is par for the course in this issue.

 

~Bang

 

Discussing something with you Is like wrestling with a bunch of midgetts.   Everytime you get ahold of one of your arguments,  you blind side me with a different one.   You never present the same argument twice... you never even stay inside the same logic thread.   

 

I did not say pro status quo folks are racists.   I did say I was in favor of keeping the name.

 

I also said several of your various arguments were spurious, self serving and il concieved...  I thought they were so tranparently false that they actually hurt the case of keeping the name.  which is why you keep changing your message while dismissing alternatives to your dribble.  All of the false arguments put forward above in post #2346 which you now have abandoned are ones which you have put forward or have defended over the last several pages of this discussion.   Bang.. argues by whackamole tactics.....  Oh but now it's something new again, and you no longer hold these idiotic positions given above in post #2346....

 

The arguement you are left with after I have smashed all your alternatives is the same one I proposed in posts  #2259;  #2122, #2114

 

The term Redskins was and is a ratial slur  the FTC has already found as such.  But that is not how it's been used in this town for nearly half a century.   The meat of this case is how many Native Americans are offended by our use of this word;  and how many need to be to vacate our trademark.

 

I am done with you.