Redskins "racial slur"?

[Gob]

[Econoline]

Just curious, Jim (and Gob)...what did you think of that story I linked to about the Pekin, Illinois Chinks? Did the school board do the right thing when they changed their sports teams' name, or should they have continued to resist the pressure to do so?

[Gob]

The students at Pekin High told the visitors that they loved their Chinks and that to them it was a name of honor and respect and no harm was intended.

The Chinese-Americans argued that regardless of how it was intended, the name was degrading and racist and should be changed.

How was the name "degrading and racist" would be my question.

Degrade.
verb
1. to lower in dignity or estimation; bring into contempt: He felt they were degrading him by making him report to the supervisor.
2. to lower in character or quality; debase.
3. to reduce (someone) to a lower rank, degree, etc.; deprive of office, rank, status, or title, especially as a punishment: degraded from director to assistant director.
4. to reduce in amount, strength, intensity, etc.

racism or racialism
1. the belief that races have distinctive cultural characteristics determined by hereditary factors and that this endows some races with an intrinsic superiority over others
2. abusive or aggressive behaviour towards members of another race on the basis of such a belief

[Lord Jim]

Econo, my response is that I'm simply not going to be drawn into a discussion about so called "analogies" with completely different situations regarding team names. Every situation is unique, with it's own set of factors, dynamics and considerations.

I think I've laid out pretty clearly where I stand regarding the factors, dynamics, and considerations in play re the current effort to force the Redskins to change the team name; that's what I'm discussing.

[Big RR]

Well, I have to say I have a really hard time seeing any kind of meaningful analogy between a body of laws and practices designed to deny a group of people their basic human and political rights, (Jim Crow laws) and the name of a professional sports franchise, which denies people...well..absolutely nothing...

In fact, to me the comparison really trivializes and demeans the importance of the civil rights struggle, (I'd make the same observation about comparing it to the smoke Nazi crusade)

Well Jim, if that's what you make of the example I gave, then there's nothing much more to say; pointing out that people don't raise their voices when they feel nothing will be accomplished in no way says the two examples are the same, but I guess you just don't see that. It's something I don't understand; you can accept or reject my position and I respect that. But to trivialize it by changing the subject and saying my example demeans the civil rights struggle just ends the discussion, nothing more.

If that was your goal, you've gotten what you wanted. Thanks for the discussion while it lasted.

[Guinevere]

We took the land from the American Indians and we gave them disease, alcohol and reservations in return.

At least we can leave them with their dignity.

It seems a small price to pay for an entire continent.

Yes, exactly.

Not even close to enough.

[Guinevere]

Me and you are the last sane people alive Jim.

Nope, you're just both too insane to be able to see it.

[Guinevere]

Well, I have to say I have a really hard time seeing any kind of meaningful analogy between a body of laws and practices designed to deny a group of people their basic human and political rights, (Jim Crow laws) and the name of a professional sports franchise, which denies people...well..absolutely nothing...

In fact, to me the comparison really trivializes and demeans the importance of the civil rights struggle, (I'd make the same observation about comparing it to the smoke Nazi crusade)

Well Jim, if that's what you make of the example I gave, then there's nothing much more to say; pointing out that people don't raise their voices when they feel nothing will be accomplished in no way says the two examples are the same, but I guess you just don't see that. It's something I don't understand; you can accept or reject my position and I respect that. But to trivialize it by changing the subject and saying my example demeans the civil rights struggle just ends the discussion, nothing more.

If that was your goal, you've gotten what you wanted. Thanks for the discussion while it lasted.

LJ has picked up his football and walked off the field.

I feel pretty strongly about this issue, and have for a good long time. I dare anyone to drive through the Pine Ridge Reservation, and not see and feel how little the native American has mattered, and continues to matter. Read Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee, and then come tell me "redskin" isn't a derogatory term.

Changing the name of a professional sports team for social reasons is not without precedent. It's already happened in DC -- the NBA "Bullets" became the NBA "Wizards" in 1995, because of the high rate of gun violence in the city. They even changed the colors and the mascot. And they've done just fine - like so many professional sports teams their value has skyrocketed.

[Long Run]

No one disputes that Native Americans were badly treated, and many still are in bad situations as a result. No one disputes that in its general usage "redskins" as applied to Native Americans is a derogatory term.

The question is simply should a professional sports team change its name when it has an 80-year history of using the name and from the very first usage clearly meant and means the name to honor the fighting and competitive spirit of Native Americans (similar to every other team nickname with reference to Native Americans, e.g., Braves, Indians, Utes, Seminoles; or other peoples, e.g., Vikings).

It makes sense to reference the historically bad treatment and general meaning of the term to explain why the use of the term offends some and shocks many. However, no one disputes that if the name is changed it will make one iota difference to how Native Americans are treated or their condition. Nor, as Guin points out, will it make an iota of difference to how the football team performs on the field or financially.

[Lord Jim]

Changing the name of a professional sports team for social reasons is not without precedent. It's already happened in DC -- the NBA "Bullets" became the NBA "Wizards" in 1995, because of the high rate of gun violence in the city.

Ahh, I'm glad you mentioned that one Guin, because it really points out the difference...

I was initially opposed to that change too; until I looked into it and saw that the reasons were tied to something tangible and meaningful; "The Bullets" name, jackets, shirts, caps, etc. were being used as symbols by violent street gangs...

I still found the name change sad, but I felt that since this was really something other than meaningless, self-righteous PC posturing with no real significance (which describes the attacks on the Redskins perfectly) but instead might actually play a role in reducing gang violence and maybe help save lives, I came to support the change.

So just as soon as someone can make a convincing case that changing the name from the Redskins to something else could help stem violence and save lives, you can count me in...

But to trivialize it by changing the subject

Big RR, I didn't change the subject at all. You're the one who decided to compare people being helped to "find their voice" to act against decades of brutal oppression to people being "helped" to "find their voice" over something that negatively affects the material well being of not one single soul. That's not something I came up with; I was responding directly to the comparison that you raised.

I feel pretty strongly about this issue

So do I...

In fact this discussion has inspired me to change my sig line...

[Gob]

OK how does the name "Redskins" for this (football? Baseball? Basketball?) team show "racism".

racism or racialism
1. the belief that races have distinctive cultural characteristics determined by hereditary factors and that this endows some races with an intrinsic superiority over others
2. abusive or aggressive behaviour towards members of another race on the basis of such a belief

[Econoline]

Changing the name of a professional sports team for social reasons is not without precedent. It's already happened in DC -- the NBA "Bullets" became the NBA "Wizards" in 1995, because of the high rate of gun violence in the city. They even changed the colors and the mascot. And they've done just fine - like so many professional sports teams their value has skyrocketed.

Anybody here remember the Cincinatti Redlegs?

[MajGenl.Meade]

Wiki does

Twice in the 1950s (the McCarthy era), the Reds, fearing that their traditional club nickname would associate them with the threat of Communism, officially changed the name of the team to the "Cincinnati Redlegs". From 1956 to 1960, the club's logo was altered to remove the term "REDS" from the inside of the "wishbone C" symbol. The "REDS" reappeared on the 1961 uniforms, but the point of the C was removed, leaving a smooth, non-wishbone curve. The traditional home-uniform logo was restored in 1967.

[rubato]

Just curious, Jim (and Gob)...what did you think of that story I linked to about the Pekin, Illinois Chinks? Did the school board do the right thing when they changed their sports teams' name, or should they have continued to resist the pressure to do so?

If a word is used innocently, one does not know that the term is offensive and is used precisely to cause offense, then one has done harm but not wrong. But if you continue to use the term after you have learned that it is offensive and that it was coined and popularized in order to give offense then you have done both harm and moral wrong. To say that you can KEEP using the term because you used it innocently before is to encase your ignorance in amber, make it permanent, and cling to your past ignorance as a 'tradition' more important than causing present harm to others.

Chinese people did not give the word "chink" a negative meaning in order to make them stop using it; the larger society gave it that meaning and one person's (or school's) ignorance does not change that.

American Indians did not coin the term "Redskin" as a negative; we did. For anyone to demand the right to continue to use it is to demand the right to give offense continually and persecute people who are already persecuted. It is bad manners and shameful conduct.


Once you have eaten of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you cannot go back. Your future behavior has to reflect what you have learned.


We often do harm without meaning to. The difference between a moral person and an asshole lies in what they do next.


yrs,
rubato

[TPFKA@W]

[Econoline]

We often do harm without meaning to. The difference between a moral person and an asshole lies in what they do next.

And what Jim did next (his new signature/logo) seems kinda...well...smartless.

[Lord Jim]

Well, I consider bowing to manufactured outrage to be quite smartless...(And they should have pushed Willy off the cliff...talk about a missed opportunity...)

And if I were to start taking advice from rubato on how to be a moral person or avoid being an asshole, I would not only be extremely smartless, but completely sanity-challenged as well...

And if you don't like my new sig line, (a change which was inspired by how persuasive I find the arguments that have been made for changing the team name) my advice to you would be:

[Joe Guy]

There's nothing like a big ass in your face signature line to stir the pot.

Not that there's anything wrong with that...

[Lord Jim]

My assumption is that Econo really likes my signature line, because surely after all these years he must know me well enough to know that the surest way to make absolutely certain that I never change it would be to condemn me for it...(And to condemn me quoting rubato no less...nice touch )

Yeah, I figure he must be a closet Redskins fan...

[BoSoxGal]

We took the land from the American Indians and we gave them disease, alcohol and reservations in return.

At least we can leave them with their dignity.

It seems a small price to pay for an entire continent.

Yes, exactly.

Not even close to enough.

To clarify, as someone (most likely the only one here) who has actually lived and worked on an Indian reservation in the USA and made close relationships working with Indians (and even been invited to share a family tee pee at pow wow), I obviously believe that we owe MUCH more to American Indians than just to show this small bit of respect by removing sports mascots that at worst denigrate and/or lampoon the culture, and at best reinforce limited stereotypes.

I can't recall who I was quoting there (Econoline? rubato? Big RR?), but I'm pretty sure the original poster I was responding to meant those declarations to be sarcastic, in any case - which was how I intended my response as well.

eta: It was Econoline, quoting Roger Simon. I'm guessing, but I'd wager that Mr. Simon doesn't think this is all that we owe to American Indians, either - just a decent good faith gesture that is a no-brainer.