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

[RFKFedEx]

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

Interesting imagery he came up with. Too bad 'Hawks" is already in use in this league, and Redhawks has been employed at Miami of OH for nearly two decades. Moore's use of the arrow image isn't going to work bc it's still a link to the Native theme. Gotta wash our hands of all things Native when the rebranding eventually happens.  

[grego]

Discussing something with you Is like wrestling with a bunch of midgetts.   

 

 

 

ummm........what????

 

oh, the irony of your position. 

 

I am done with you.

 

 

 

i think the feeling is mutual. 

[War Paint]

Interesting imagery he came up with. Too bad 'Hawks" is already in use in this league, and Redhawks has been employed at Miami of OH for nearly two decades. Moore's use of the arrow image isn't going to work bc it's still a link to the Native theme. Gotta wash our hands of all things Native when the rebranding eventually happens.  

The rebranding will not happen anytime soon, if ever.  Snyder nor the league want to change it.  The vast majority want to keep the name.  I don't understand why you think a name and theme change is inevitable.  The only way a change will occur is if revenue takes a massive hit due to public rejection of the theme.  The one's who want a name change are fighting a steep uphill battle.

[Bang]

 

It's pretty easy. All you have to do is read.

I only have one argument when it comes down to it. I've stood on it since day one.

there have been other supporting arguments that have come up, but overall, my whole argument has been the same.

Listen to them. ALL of them. They are the ones who get to tell us whether it's a slur or not. 
 

The very idea of smashing through that is about as clear a picture of this whole thing as i've read yet.

 

 

And we prefer "Little People", Mr. Sensitivity.

 

 

 ~Dang

[grego]

the guy screaming 'racial slur! disctionary says racial slur! offensive!' says 'midgets'. 

 

unbelievable. 

[Predicto]

Jeez.. still with the dictionary.

Could there be a more narrow approach?

~Bang

 

It's narrow, but it is also pretty objective.  The guys making the dictionaries did not define "redskin" that way for years and years because Susan Harjo made a stink last week or because they are Cowboys fans, or whatever.   They defined it that way because that is how they - the most official scholars of the language - thought most appropriate.   They were just doing their jobs.

 

That is the problem we face.  It's silly to pretend otherwise.

[TheGoodBits]

It's narrow, but it is also pretty objective. The guys making the dictionaries did not define "redskin" that way for years and years because Susan Harjo made a stink last week or because they are Cowboys fans, or whatever. They defined it that way because that is how they - the most official scholars of the language - thought most appropriate. They were just doing their jobs.

That is the problem we face. It's silly to pretend otherwise.

Someone yesterday mentioned his dictionary from the 1970s did not define it as a slur. I'm really curious to know when that definition was officially adopted, who decided to define it that way, and why. Has the meaning of the word REALLY changed in the last 40 years?

[Predicto]

..

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.

 

 

That is utter baloney.   I am absolutely as fully educated on the entirely of this matter as anyone on this board.   I have read every damn thing I can find.  I have formed my opinion based on the whole, as I see it.   

 

You find my arguments tired and narrow and small-minded because you don't agree with them.   You find the opposite arguments to be fresh, deep and broad-minded because you agree with them.  Be honest.   

[Bang]

It's narrow, but it is also pretty objective.  The guys making the dictionaries did not define "redskin" that way for years and years because Susan Harjo made a stink last week or because they are Cowboys fans, or whatever.   They defined it that way because that is how they - the most official scholars of the language - thought most appropriate.   They were just doing their jobs.

 

That is the problem we face.  It's silly to pretend otherwise.

That's fair.

 

however, I think as an answer to this particular question, it is only relevant in a minute way.

As I said,, if the majority don't find it offensive, how is it? 

"Sometimes offensive"..  i don't think really offers us the answer to this debate.

 

As it was said many many pages back by someone who I forgot.. I don't know what the number or percentage of Natives need to sway it in my mind. but it's more than a handful. If the rest were ambivalent about it, then I'd have something else to think about,, but it seems that there are many who are not, and disagree.

It casts a pretty big grey area on "sometimes offensive".

 

~Bang

[Predicto]

Someone yesterday mentioned his dictionary from the 1970s did not define it as a slur. I'm really curious to know when that definition was officially adopted, who decided to define it that way, and why. Has the meaning of the word REALLY changed in the last 40 years?

 

Yes, the language does change over time (see the ever lessening use of the term "colored boy" to describe an African-American man).  

 

There also are also a lot of dictionaries out there, some more detailed in their definitions and some less broad.  I'm sure that you can find a couple today that don't discuss whether the word is considered offensive,

 

But the overwhelming majority do.

 

I think we might all agree that the most definitive source on word definitions is the Oxford English Dictionary.  I just checked it, and this was the first definition for the word redskin:

 

1. An American Indian. Now somewhat dated and freq[uently]. considered offensive.

 

That's the big elephant in the room.

 

the guy screaming 'racial slur! disctionary says racial slur! offensive!' says 'midgets'. 

 

unbelievable. 

 

Sometimes it is difficult to be the one arguing on the same side as JMS.

 

 

 

(just teasing you JMS - it's nice to have you back) 

[Boss_Hogg]

 

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

 

Gyasi Ross wrote another piece in the Huffington Post yesterday:

 

The False Binary of the 'Redskins' Controversy

The Redskins political issue was not a topic I cared at all about until pretty recently. Like many others, I also fell for the false binary. It made sense -- I am from the reservation, live and work on the reservation and am intimately familiar with those grim statistics that oftentimes accompany reservation life. Those social problems are very real and acute, as they are in most poor communities, and we are in need of real solutions; poverty; suicide, six times the national average; drug and alcohol abuse; crime (the unique legal character of reservation lands -- oftentimes non-Native criminals move there intent on doing bad acts because tribal law enforcement generally cannot enforce against them -- makes them a haven for drugs). Those things are real within our communities and we are in dire need of resources and advocacy. Those fundamental life issues should absolutely be a top priority for all Native people and if a Native person doesn't recognize the immediacy of those pocketbook/fundamental needs, then they need to spend more time in Indian Country. In fact, there will literally be Native people who are alive right now who will not be alive at this time next year because those fundamental needs weren't addressed.

 

I cannot say that about the Redskins political topic. And so the fundamental needs are more important to me.

Moreover, if the Redskins name changes tomorrow, those fundamental needs absolutely still must be addressed. Changing the Redskins name won't put food on one Indian kid's plate; it won't give one Native person a job in our economically vulnerable homelands. Those are facts.

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/gyasi-/redskins-indians_b_4178286.html

[Boss_Hogg]

Here's Assemblywoman Claudia Tenney after Ray Halbritter's crew had her ejected from the hotel:

 

 

Se mentioned the name of Melvin Phillips, a full blooded Oneida Indian who's land has been seized by Halbritter.

[Predicto]

That's fair.

 

however, I think as an answer to this particular question, it is only relevant in a minute way.

As I said,, if the majority don't find it offensive, how is it? 

"Sometimes offensive"..  i don't think really offers us the answer to this debate.

 

As it was said many many pages back by someone who I forgot.. I don't know what the number or percentage of Natives need to sway it in my mind. but it's more than a handful. If the rest were ambivalent about it, then I'd have something else to think about,, but it seems that there are many who are not, and disagree.

It casts a pretty big grey area on "sometimes offensive".

 

~Bang

 

I don't find it to be a "minute" point.  I find it to be an enormous point.

 

For me, it changes the debate from:

 

1) no one defines this word as offensive and no one intends it to be offensive, so the burden is on you to prove to me that it is a problem (and you can't).  

 

into 

 

2) Well, yes, I admit that this word is generally defined in the dictionaries as an anachronism and is frequently considered offensive in modern times, but let me show you why it is different in this particular case because of history and tradition and our use of respectful imagery in our logo and so on. (i.e. look we just don't want to change it).

 

The first argument is a winner, but the second argument is a loser.  And because the dictionaries define the word the way they do, we are stuck with the second argument.   Deep down I think everyone understands this, which is why everyone who doesn't want to change the name tries to downplay the dictionary definitions.

[Larry]

Jeez.. still with the dictionary.

Could there be a more narrow approach?

~Bang

 

Sir, I am Vulcan. We embrace technicality. 

 

- Spock. 

[Predicto]

Gyasi Ross wrote another piece in the Huffington Post yesterday:

 

The False Binary of the 'Redskins' Controversy

The Redskins political issue was not a topic I cared at all about until pretty recently. Like many others, I also fell for the false binary. It made sense -- I am from the reservation, live and work on the reservation and am intimately familiar with those grim statistics that oftentimes accompany reservation life. Those social problems are very real and acute, as they are in most poor communities, and we are in need of real solutions; poverty; suicide, six times the national average; drug and alcohol abuse; crime (the unique legal character of reservation lands -- oftentimes non-Native criminals move there intent on doing bad acts because tribal law enforcement generally cannot enforce against them -- makes them a haven for drugs). Those things are real within our communities and we are in dire need of resources and advocacy. Those fundamental life issues should absolutely be a top priority for all Native people and if a Native person doesn't recognize the immediacy of those pocketbook/fundamental needs, then they need to spend more time in Indian Country. In fact, there will literally be Native people who are alive right now who will not be alive at this time next year because those fundamental needs weren't addressed.

 

I cannot say that about the Redskins political topic. And so the fundamental needs are more important to me.

Moreover, if the Redskins name changes tomorrow, those fundamental needs absolutely still must be addressed. Changing the Redskins name won't put food on one Indian kid's plate; it won't give one Native person a job in our economically vulnerable homelands. Those are facts.

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/gyasi-/redskins-indians_b_4178286.html

 

He is correct, of course.  But the fact that Native Americans face much bigger problems it isn't much of an argument in favor of KEEPING the name.  

[Larry]

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

True.

However, to fall under the premises of "offensive" it does help if a significant number of people find it offensive.

See, if there were a consensus that the name is offensive, we wouldn't even be having this argument.

But, instead, there's a very broad consensus that the name of the team isn't offensive. But some people are trying to claim that it is, anyway. Through the technique of "well, if we could just change the discussion from 'is the name of the football team offensive' to 'would the name be offensive if it had a different word in it' or 'would this word be offensive if it were deliberately used for the purpose of being offensive'"

There's a reason why the people pushing for the name to be changed, keep trying to avoid the question "is the name 'The Washington Redskins" offensive?" It's because that question has already been answered. And the answer is "no".

[elkabong82]

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.  

 

This has been addressed. It would make about as much sense as going to Dallas and calling everyone Cowboy, or going to Boston and calling everyone Patriot, or going to Scandinavia and calling everyone Viking. That's not the correct context and neither refers to people today but to warriors of the past. Tell you what, go to those places and also say "Hey chief" or "hey brave," and tell me how that works out. Guess that means those teams are disparaging too. 

 

Blacksins and yellowskin don't have the same history behind it, they are simplistic, made up terms in a poor analogy devoid of the same context used with Redskins. 

 

Also, again with the dictionary, it defines the word as usually offensive, but to most Native Americans it's not, so how can the definition be true? What's the evidence used to state that it is offensive? You are simply accepting the definition because it is the dictionary, while ignoring that it claim of "usually offensive" doesn't match the reality that most NAs are indifferent to team's usage of the word and therefor it can't be "usually offensive."

[Larry]

Someone yesterday mentioned his dictionary from the 1970s did not define it as a slur. I'm really curious to know when that definition was officially adopted, who decided to define it that way, and why. Has the meaning of the word REALLY changed in the last 40 years?

Suspect you'll find that probably, in the 1970s, dictionaries simply didn't bother to describe words os offensive or not. It probably wasn't something they cared to define, back them.

In any case, I'd suggest dropping the defense that the dictionary definition is somehow the subject to manipulation or PC pressure or whatever.

The term "redskin" is offensive. When it is referring to the race of people. I think the dictionary defining it as offensive is correct.

If you ignore every time the term refers to a football team (or potatoes).

The same dictionary no doubt refers to the word "oreo" as offensive, too. If it isn't referring to a double stuff cookie.

It doesn't mean that the cookie is offensive. The dictionary simply isn't allowed to admit that the cookie exists. (Except as the word origin for the non-cookie usage.)

[Predicto]

 

Also, again with the dictionary, it defines the word as usually offensive, but to most Native Americans it's not, so how can the definition be true? What's the evidence used to state that it is offensive? You are simply accepting the definition because it is the dictionary, while ignoring that it claim of "usually offensive" doesn't match the reality that most NAs are indifferent to team's usage of the word and therefor it can't be "usually offensive."

 

Actually, that wasn't the question that they were asked, at least not in the Annenberg poll.  

[elkabong82]

He is correct, of course.  But the fact that Native Americans face much bigger problems it isn't much of an argument in favor of KEEPING the name.  

 

But that's not the issue. The issue is if the name should be changed. The fact Native Americans face much bigger problems isn't much of an argument in favor of CHANGING the name either. The existence of mass indifference is telling as to the true degree of offensiveness..

Actually, that wasn't the question that they were asked, at least not in the Annenberg poll.  

 

The very article you posted in here recently, the writer said most are indifferent, have greater worries. I imagine if the word were usually offensive, and akin to the n word, that there would be much more cares regardless of life situation.

 

Question is below. Seems to me with that exact question that if the word were usually offensive then the results would have been the opposite of what they turned out to be.

 

“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?” 

[Predicto]

But that's not the issue. The issue is if the name should be changed. The fact Native Americans face much bigger problems isn't much of an argument in favor of CHANGING the name either. The existence of mass indifference is telling as to the true degree of offensiveness..

 

The very article you posted in here recently, the writer said most are indifferent, have greater worries. I imagine if the word were usually offensive, and akin to the n word, that there would be much more cares regardless of life situation.

 

Question is below. Seems to me with that exact question that if the word were usually offensive then the results would have been the opposite of what they turned out to be.

 

“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?” 

 

The fact that they have bigger things to worry about is a neutral point to me.  African-Americans as a whole also have bigger things to worry about than names, and if you ask African-Americans whether they would prefer to eliminate poverty in the ghetto or the use of racial slurs, I'm sure they would chose to dump the poverty.   But the slurs are still a problem.

 

However, I'm not dismissing the general point you and Bang are making.  If Native American like the name who are we to tell them differently.   I'd just like to see more outreach to them to make absolutely sure that we know how they really feel about it.  

[steve09ru]

my questions is:  if a name can change from perfectly fine meaning for one's group to a negative meaning to one's group then why can't the negative meaning of the name change to be perfectly fine?

 

What I keep seeing as being offensive is that indians were scalped and that was referred to as Redskins.  The name of the Washington Redskins, however, is not from the scalped meaning of it but the actual people - not from skins color but war paint.  I was reading an article a week or so back that talked about how when referring to Indians, it's not about a certain race, it's about a certain group of people.  If somethings not derived from a race then can it really be racial?

[Predicto]

my questions is:  if a name can change from perfectly fine meaning for one's group to a negative meaning to one's group then why can't the negative meaning of the name change to be perfectly fine?

 

 

Sure it can.  It did with "Sooner" and "Tar Heel" and "Hoosier."  But it's hard work, and there are no guarantees of success.  It seems like it generally works best if the group in question adopts the name for itself as a badge of solidarity.

 

I'm thinking it unlikely that will happen here, but it is possible I guess.   

[Larry]

He is correct, of course.  But the fact that Native Americans face much bigger problems it isn't much of an argument in favor of KEEPING the name.  

 

Agreed. 

 

I've never been a big fan of "as long as there are homeless people, we cannot possibly do anything about the deficit" or similar arguments.  Just because you can't solve Problem X, doesn't mean Problem Y doesn't exist. 

Actually, that wasn't the question that they were asked, at least not in the Annenberg poll.  

 

Agreed. 

 

The Annenberg poll asked them about their feelings about the name of the football team.  The dictionary is required to ignore that usage. 

 

(Guess which usage this thread is discussing.) 

[grego]

Yes, the language does change over time (see the ever lessening use of the term "colored boy" to describe an African-American man).  

 

There also are also a lot of dictionaries out there, some more detailed in their definitions and some less broad.  I'm sure that you can find a couple today that don't discuss whether the word is considered offensive,

 

But the overwhelming majority do.

 

I think we might all agree that the most definitive source on word definitions is the Oxford English Dictionary.  I just checked it, and this was the first definition for the word redskin:

 

1. An American Indian. Now somewhat dated and freq[uently]. considered offensive.

 

That's the big elephant in the room.

 

 

 

if dictionaries dont list proper nouns, then what else would they say the word means? i think its obvious the primary meaning is mascot of the football team, followed by potatoes. but since the dictionary doesnt list those terms, according to their rules, then i understand how they are 'obligated 'to list a definition of the word that is so obscure and rare in its 'use' that the vast majority of those to whom it applies dont agree with that definition. 

 

technically, it 'could' be 'offensive', even if it technically is never actually used that way. but you could say that about alot of words.

 

its not that different -in terms of dictionary definition vs how words are commonly and obviously actually used- as **** and fag. the dictionary lists 'penis' as the very last definition.  and doesnt list 'slang term for homosexual' for fag either, even though both are clearly the most common definition of the terms- by miles- in this country. 

 

you will find some of the most obscure definitions of words- definitions you would never, ever use or ones that havent been used literally in a century- in the dictionary.

 

why they list the most obscure definitions over the most common ones, i dont know. 

 

but its enough reason to not put stock in the dictionary as the end all, be all as far as how people in this country (including native americans) actually define and use words.