Poll: Should the "Redskins" name be changed?

[uncle flap]

It's got nothin to do with slavery or anything else. There's a lot of team names that go back almost 100 years that are rooted in American history. Good or bad. The patriots, the cowboys the redskins, steelers, and yes, the bills.

Should the steelers change their name because of the horrible working conditions their industry endured?

Should animal rights activists and the spca petition that the bills name be changed because buffalo bill Cody slaughtered over

4200 American bison?

It gets to a point where, in the words of Stevie Johnson, "why so serious?"

 

Oh, you are serious. Well, none of those examples disparage a group of people who were systematically marginalized and nearly exterminated by the ancestors of the current powers that be, nor do any of those examples refer to a word used in a derogatory sense describing the color of their skin.

 

People are proud to be cowboys, proud to be patriots, and proud to be steel workers- none of those things have anything to do with race or skin color. Native Americans are certainly proud of their heritage, but would not be proud to reduced to a description of their skin color.

 

Bill Cody was a celebrity and war hero with local ties. The football team's name doesn't glorify the killing of bison, it does just the opposite! The damn logo is a charging bison!

 

Like I said I get the "slippery-slope" thing, but to make a comparison using those examples is ludicrous.

 

Instead of using your brain to concoct asinine analogies, why don't you take a second to think about how someone besides yourself might feel?

[Joe Miner]

First of all, plenty of people still use the term disparagingly, although you are correct that the most prominent use today is in reference to the football team. But the football team's name is in reference to a disparaging term. So the connotation hasn't completely changed, just the context. It's not like "awful" which was once used to describe things in a positive way, or "nice" which at one time meant "foolish."

 

 

Except that's where you're wrong. It's not in reference to a disparaging term. The original term didn't disparage anyone. Why are you choosing to associate it with that time period instead of the time period that predates that when it was a term that Native Americans used to describe themselves? When did the Washington Redskins time stamp the origin of their name?

 

A Google search as proof that the term is still widely used disparagingly? Really? Google? I also like how in the second quote "example" that the word redskin is the disparaging term, but apparently we're ok with cocksucks. In fact, how many terms or words are used disparagingly in those examples? Would saying any of that crap be that much better without the word redskin in it?

 

It's not words that are bad, it's the intentions.

 

Hell, you could probably do a Google search and find that the term Wednesday is used disparagingly.

[Matt in KC]

Maybe we set Preseason game 3 as the deadline to close down this thread or move it off the main board...?

[uncle flap]

Except that's where you're wrong. It's not in reference to a disparaging term. It most certainly is.

The original term didn't disparage anyone. Again, so...?

Why are you choosing to associate it with that time period instead of the time period that predates that when it was a term that Native Americans used to describe themselves? Why wouldn't I? Even the linguist you cite said, "'You could believe everything in my article' and still oppose current public usage of 'redskin.'"

When did the Washington Redskins time stamp the origin of their name? The 1930s, not the 1700s. Still failing to see how an obsolete "definition" fits into modern parlance.

 

A Google search as proof that the term is still widely used disparagingly? Really? Google? As opposed to...? I also like how in the second quote "example" that the word redskin is the disparaging term, but apparently we're ok with cocksucks. What?!? Yeah, let's name a team the C**ksucks! In fact, how many terms or words are used disparagingly in those examples? Would saying any of that crap be that much better without the word redskin in it? No, but that's not the point. The point is that the name of a football team is also used as a racist slur.

 

It's not words that are bad, it's the intentions. That's quite a stretch. The "intention" of the team name to conjure up Native American imagery- if you don't believe me, check the logo. Whether or not the "intention" is to honor Native Americans, the fact is that the term used to do so is 100% based on skin color. That same term has been frequently used in a pejorative sense.

 

Hell, you could probably do a Google search and find that the term Wednesday is used disparagingly. And it'd be a hell of a lot tougher than finding "redskin" used as a slur. Look up "redskin" in the dictionary, then look up "Wednesday" and get back to me.

[Joe Miner]

 

Well, you've messed up the quoting structure, so good luck following the discussion.

 

You are arguing the "my" definition of redskin is obsolete. I'm telling you that since outside of a ridiculous Google search you disparaging definition is obsolete as well. No one uses the term redskin anymore. The only time it's used is when referring to an NFL team. The word itself has a history, why you choose to pick a specific time period in that history and cling to it as the word's definition while at the same time telling me that words evolve makes no sense. You want to let it evolve to being a racist term, but are unwilling to let it evolve to referring to a silly football team.

 

A random Google search isn't proof of anything. If you think it is you have issues. And you missed the point as well. Any word can be offensive. Why is it worse to use a racial word in an offensive manner than any other word in an offensive manner. You are the one placing so much emphasis on race. Hateful speech like what you quoted shouldn't be acceptable to normal people regardless of whether there was a racial description in there or not.

 

So if the intention of the word redskin is now to refer to a football team, what's the problem with it? The only problem is that you are still beholden to wanting to feel victimized by the term.

 

If someone calls me a cracker or a gringo, or honky, or whatever should I be more upset that race was indicated in the term or should I be more upset that their intention was to be rude, mean, and disrespectful.

 

Who are the people that care most about race? Racists.

Edited August 21, 2013 by Joe Miner

[uncle flap]

So... I have issues, I'm a racist, and I'm the one who missed the point?

 

Nice strawman!

 

Since you didn't do anything to refute what I said, I won't bother to repeat myself and give you another opportunity to embarrass yourself. But feel free to continue, you've done such a great job so far.

Edited August 21, 2013 by uncle flap

[Joe Miner]

So... I have issues, I'm a racist, and I'm the one who missed the point?

 

Nice strawman!

 

Since you didn't do anything to refute what I said, I won't bother to repeat myself and give you another opportunity to embarrass yourself. But feel free to continue, you've done such a great job so far.

 

So you do believe that a simple Google search is an effective way of gathering useful and meaningful data? Good to know.

 

Yes, you did miss a few of the points I made.

 

I have no idea if you are a racist or not.

 

But I guess reading comprehension is something you can add to your list of things to learn.

[Herd of Bills]

How about the Washington Forked Tongues? Sounds real appropriate to me.

[SBUffalo]

Except that's where you're wrong. It's not in reference to a disparaging term. The original term didn't disparage anyone. Why are you choosing to associate it with that time period instead of the time period that predates that when it was a term that Native Americans used to describe themselves?

 

What is the revisionist historical bull ****? The term originated from the white man referring to American Indians. Please, do some research first.

[NoSaint]

Maybe we set Preseason game 3 as the deadline to close down this thread or move it off the main board...?

 

Is it that hard not to click? It's not like its 14 threads on the same topic gumming up the front page, its just a lone thread that seems to have interest. I'd say you should advocate keeping it so it doesn't pop up with new threads every time any article comes out. It's pretty impressively self contained minus a couple small spillovers

[Rocky Landing]

 

A random Google search isn't proof of anything.

 

Googling a subject is not a meaningless endeavor. Along with all the insipid, drivel, insidious advertising, partisan demagoguery, and rule #34 pornography, a Google search can find reliable news sources, peer reviewed journals, statistics, definitions, and even well thought out, coherent opinion. It is one of the most amazing educational tools ever invented.

 

The internet is like a giant library, on top of a news stand, on top of a festering trash heap with a toxic sewage moat. You just have to wade through the excrement, climb over the trash, ignore the tabloid material, and find what you're looking for.

 

Is it that hard not to click? It's not like its 14 threads on the same topic gumming up the front page, its just a lone thread that seems to have interest. I'd say you should advocate keeping it so it doesn't pop up with new threads every time any article comes out. It's pretty impressively self contained minus a couple small spillovers

CAN'T... NOT... CLICK...

[DC Tom]

What is the revisionist historical bull ****? The term originated from the white man referring to American Indians. Please, do some research first.

 

The term originated from Native Americans referring to themselves, actually.

[Joe Miner]

 

What is the revisionist historical bull ****? The term originated from the white man referring to American Indians. Please, do some research first.

 

I posted an article, feel free to prove it is incorrect.

 

But neither the article nor I ever said it didn't originate from the white men. What was said was that it didn't originate as a disparaging term.

 

If this is an example of your reading comprehension, I can wait to read your refute of the link I posted.

[SBUffalo]

I posted an article, feel free to prove it is incorrect.

 

But neither the article nor I ever said it didn't originate from the white men. What was said was that it didn't originate as a disparaging term.

 

If this is an example of your reading comprehension, I can wait to read your refute of the link I posted.

 

It WAS originally used as a disparaging term. That person in the link is one person compared to the MANY others researchers who have concluded otherwise. While it takes one to start a movement, I'd need a lot more than just one researcher to change history.

 

 

And, just to entertain your/this researchers theory, the word is STILL based on terrible times. It still stands as a reminder of the times that American Indian's would have needed a term to separate themselves from the "whiteskins" who came, murdered them in cold blood and stole their land. So the theory that you stand behind still doesn't make the word usable.

Edited August 22, 2013 by DStebb716

[iinii]

It should probably be changed. Native Americans find it offensive and degrading. Now is the time for enlightenment even if it is football.

[ExiledInIllinois]

Sports teams years ago were not held in such high regard as they are now. One could only assume that is why they chose such a disparging name and then ontop of it in Washington, D.C. of all places... The power structures that laid the most hurt and misery on to Native Americans.

 

I mean, the Atlanta Braves were first the Boston Red Stockings/Red Caps and then the Beaneaters. Maybe the Braves should go back to being called the Beaneaters. Heck, better yet... Change the Red Sox to the Boston Beaneaters. There is only one true, original Sox in baseball and they are the White Sox... They took the Sox name first.

 

There was nothing honorable in SOME nicknames. It is revisionist to think that there was honor associated with Washington's nickname. They never paid Natives tribute. Native American nicknames were thought of as subhuman and lumped in with other animal nicknames. Washington's nickname and history suggests this. End the charade and rename them the Washington Blood Suckers... Leeches. Or, how 'bout the Washington Congresscritters... Don't we all love less than honorable blood sucking animals. Scalp the opponent, then suck their blood!

[uncle flap]

So you do believe that a simple Google search is an effective way of gathering useful and meaningful data? Good to know.

 

Yes, you did miss a few of the points I made.

 

I have no idea if you are a racist or not.

 

But I guess reading comprehension is something you can add to your list of things to learn.

 

My goodness. Pray tell, how did you find a link to the article you quoted? Bing? Yahoo? I guess since I found the precious article you cited listed in a simple Google search, it isn't useful or meaningful. Although, I can also find your meaningless, useless reply through a Google search as well, so maybe you're on to something.

 

And which point did I miss? I answered all your questions, and your single "point" was that, "Words aren't bad, intentions are." Well, based on the Native American logo, I can only assume that the intention of the name "Redskin" is intended to represent Native Americans. Despite your denial, "redskin" is usually offensive in every other context.

 

You're telling me that the "Washington Redskins" name is completely unrelated to the term "redskin," but you're arguing that the name shouldn't be changed because the word "redskin" originally had a neutral connotation, while ignoring the fact that if you were to call a Native American a "redskin," he would certainly take it as an insult. He wouldn't think that you were mistaking him for a football player, as you seem to be implying.

 

So you're using an outdated definition of a term, that you then deem irrelevant anyway, to conclude that the name shouldn't be changed? You have a flawed premise and a flawed argument, so your conclusion is moot.

 

For like the fifth time now in this thread, I ask, why do you and others feel obligated to argue about the definition and/or connotation of the word "redskin," when I assume your real beef with the scenario is something about "freedom" and "whiny PC liberals?"

 

And again, for like the fifth time, I agree that they shouldn't be forced by Congress to change the name. Snyder has every right to call the team whatever they want. And if you don't find it offensive, more power to you.

 

Why is it that you have so much trouble understanding why someone else might be offended, as if it's completely irrational? Do you really think these hollow arguments and analogies are convincing in the slightest? Is your baseless opinion somehow more valuable than anyone else's? I'd actually say that it's less valuable, since there was apparently no critical thought involved in concocting your "opinion."

 

If this is really about freedom, what about the freedom to protest? The freedom to litigate? Isn't a Native American, or anyone else for that matter, "free" to be offended by the team name?

Edited August 22, 2013 by uncle flap

[Joe Miner]

My goodness. Pray tell, how did you find a link to the article you quoted? Bing? Yahoo? I guess since I found the precious article you cited listed in a simple Google search, it isn't useful or meaningful. Although, I can also find your meaningless, useless reply through a Google search as well, so maybe you're on to something.

 

And which point did I miss? I answered all your questions, and your single "point" was that, "Words aren't bad, intentions are." Well, based on the Native American logo, I can only assume that the intention of the name "Redskin" is intended to represent Native Americans. Despite your denial, "redskin" is usually offensive in every other context.

 

You're telling me that the "Washington Redskins" name is completely unrelated to the term "redskin," but you're arguing that the name shouldn't be changed because the word "redskin" originally had a neutral connotation, while ignoring the fact that if you were to call a Native American a "redskin," he would certainly take it as an insult. He wouldn't think that you were mistaking him for a football player, as you seem to be implying.

 

So you're using an outdated definition of a term, that you then deem irrelevant anyway, to conclude that the name shouldn't be changed? You have a flawed premise and a flawed argument, so your conclusion is moot.

 

For like the fifth time now in this thread, I ask, why do you and others feel obligated to argue about the definition and/or connotation of the word "redskin," when I assume your real beef with the scenario is something about "freedom" and "whiny PC liberals?"

 

And again, for like the fifth time, I agree that they shouldn't be forced by Congress to change the name. Snyder has every right to call the team whatever they want. And if you don't find it offensive, more power to you.

 

Why is it that you have so much trouble understanding why someone else might be offended, as if it's completely irrational? Do you really think these hollow arguments and analogies are convincing in the slightest? Is your baseless opinion somehow more valuable than anyone else's? I'd actually say that it's less valuable, since there was apparently no critical thought involved in concocting your "opinion."

 

If this is really about freedom, what about the freedom to protest? The freedom to litigate? Isn't a Native American, or anyone else for that matter, "free" to be offended by the team name?

 

The point that you've come away from so far in our few posts has resulted in "freedom"? Really? That's one of the most ridiculous abuses of logic I've ever seen. Either you honestly think that, in which case I pity you, or you are simply trolling at this point.

 

After laughing my way through your response, my kindest belief about you is that you haven't understood much of what I've said in this thread.

 

Again...reading comprehension can be a useful skill to learn.

 

After several strawman arguments and a complete misunderstanding or misrepresentation of anything I've said, you have now moved on to some hair brained tangent about this really being about freedom.

 

Good job on that left turn.

 

The previous poster was right, this thread should be closed. It's flown way past any point of actual conversation and has buried itself deep in the realm of stupidity.

[Matt in KC]

Is it that hard not to click? It's not like its 14 threads on the same topic gumming up the front page, its just a lone thread that seems to have interest. I'd say you should advocate keeping it so it doesn't pop up with new threads every time any article comes out. It's pretty impressively self contained minus a couple small spillovers

I think there is a lot of good discussion in the thread, and it has been pretty disciplined, considering the topic. It's just below the threshold I'd give the main board during the season. It's a great of-season topic, but seems to belong more in OTW. Also, I do read it all the time. I was just getting frustrated and annoyed by the back and forth between uncle flap and Mr. baggadoughnuts.

 

For what it's worth, uncle flap seems more right to me. I just don't see the discussion adding anything that hasn't already been beat to death. I do like it when people link new articles that reflect public sentiment or new actions.

[uncle flap]

You're right- sorry for hijacking the thread.