Redskins "racial slur"?

[Guinevere]

So long as it's a racial slur anywhere, it's a racial slur everywhere.

I think that's really the crux of the dispute, and where we're just going to have to agree to disagree...

It seems to me that there are plenty of words that can be a slur in one context, and not in another. I'll give you an example:

I noticed that lately there have been a series of PSAs running aimed at teenagers designed to discourage them from using the word "gay" as a way to put down someone or something; as in : "that's so gay"...

So, clearly in that context the use of the term is a "slur", as it is intended to be. But there are plenty of contexts where the use of the term is not at all insulting.

It is morally wrong to use words to attempt to inflict pain on others. (As in the example you cited about the kids in Montana) But that is where the "wrong" lies in my view; not inherently in the words themselves. Context matters.

If the Washington Redskins had been named that in order to put down or derogate American Indians, I'd be all for changing the name. But the reality is the exact opposite is the case; as Long Run pointed out earlier, teams with American Indian names were given those names because of positive perceptions about the historical qualities of American Indians (bravery, strength, fearlessness, etc.)

Obviously the kids you refer to in Montana aren't calling each other that because they want the kid they're calling it to believe they think he's brave, strong or fearless....

Dearie, they are called homonyms, and while "gay" is one of them (like "bark"), "redskin is not. It has one meaning and one meaning only (one acknowledged by your team and its mascot).

You can try and shift the playing field all you like by claiming the outrage is manufactured, or pointing fingers at "white liberals," but it still doesn't change the truth -- the name is degrading and needs to be changed.

[Crackpot]

Sorry Guin but this thread alone has many uses of the potato(e) variety.

[Joe Guy]

I agree with Jim that a lot of this is manufactured outrage but I believe there's also sincere feelings from a lot of Native Americans around the country. They've probably believed they were powerless to change something like a football team's name and so they accepted that they had to live with it.

Like it or not, it doesn't matter what the name Redskins means to football fans. It has been used as an insult to Native Americans and likely still is in parts of this country.

I'm glad Jim brought up the word gay. The term is not always used as a derogatory term but how would the public react to a football team named the Washington Gays?

I would expect some outrage from the public.

This is one of those changes us older folks have to learn to accept. Things were different when we were younger. Many things were acceptable back then that aren't now.

This shouldn't even be an issue and it wouldn't be if the owners of the Redskins weren't fighting the change. It has already caused a divide that will continue even after the name is changed - which ultimately will happen.

All of the publicity could have been avoided, or at least minimized, if the owners had been less protective of the name and more open to the opinions against the continued use of it.

But then again, it's football. A game where big ugly people bang into each other and try to hurt them while hundreds of thousands of people watch and encourage them.

It's not easy to change that mindset.

[Guinevere]

But then again, it's football. A game where big ugly people bang into each other and try to hurt them …

I beg to differ:



Clearly *not* ugly . . .

[Joe Guy]

Brady is not one of the people on the field that bangs into people and tries to hurt them.

I'm talking about this type of player...

[Guinevere]

Yes, but people try to bang into him all the time.

Sometime even on the football field

[Daisy]

Hello!!

[BoSoxGal]

[BoSoxGal]

Joe Guy, that was a great post.

[Gob]

Like it or not, it doesn't matter what the name Redskins means to football fans. It has been used as an insult to Native Americans and likely still is in parts of this country.

Sorta like the word "nigger" which is the most offensive word in the world, a call for pitchforks and torches. Unless used by a black rapper.

So tell me, why are the Redskins fans so derogatory about the team they support?

[rubato]

Some people are able to understand that "redskin" is the same as calling a team the "nigger, jew-boy, chink, jap, dago, wetbacks" and some are too stupid to get it.


Personally I think it is delightful, in a perverse way, that such jackasses want to make a public display of their moral and cognitive deficiencies. Make a note. They are the same cowards who will be lying and pretending they never did such a thing in the future.


yrs,
rubato

[Joe Guy]

So tell me, why are the Redskins fans so derogatory about the team they support?

Because they don't like them. They never accomplish anything and the players are so dumb that they don't realize the name of their team describes Native Americans that white cowboys used to go out and kill for money.

Go Redskins!!...

[Lord Jim]

This shouldn't even be an issue and it wouldn't be if the owners of the Redskins weren't fighting the change.

On the contrary, the problem is the owner hasn't fought back hard enough. Snyder has bent over backwards to try and placate these arrogant demanding whiners, holding multiple meetings, going to reservations, setting a foundation to help American Indians, etc.

All of this has just encouraged them to think that they can roll him if they harass him long enough; what he needs to do is slam the door on this with the kind of finality that Jack Kent Cooke used, and then the media will move on to some new PC Cause Du Jour...

Another thing that he might consider doing is taking out some commercials to counteract the propaganda. (My understanding is that these commercials absurdly try to tie the football team to the historical wrongs done to the Indians, as though the football team had anything to with that, or that they selected the name in order to celebrate those wrongs. ) The way to counteract propaganda is with education, and clearly some people are in need of being educated about this. (Though a lot fewer then one would think from watching the media reports, since 80% still aren't falling for this nonsense.)

All of the publicity could have been avoided, or at least minimized, if the owners had been less protective of the name and more open to the opinions against the continued use of it.

All of the publicity could have been avoided if a handful of opportunists didn't see exploiting this non-issue as a way to make a quick buck.

Look, the onus for this isn't on Snyder, or the Redskins fans. The onus is on those folks who think they have the right to force the team owner to change the name despite overwhelming public support. These folks are the cause of this, not Snyder. They are the ones who need to do some self-examination and reflection. They are the ones who ought to be on the defensive here. And what ever divisiveness exists over this, they are the cause of it.

The onus on them is to provide a convincing case that the name needs to changed; Snyder shouldn't need to provide proof that it doesn't. (Though he's been doing it anyway. )

And so far they haven't come close to providing a compelling case; they haven't even really tried. (Apparently they think they can prevail just through bullying and harassment.) A compelling case would involve showing that either there's some material harm being created by the franchise name, (like "The Bullets" case) or that the name was chosen for some morally ugly purpose, (like the confederate battle flag symbol on the state flags)

They haven't provided one shred of evidence for either of these for a very good reason; because none exists.

So the best they can do is spout a bunch of irrelevant stuff about the historical wrongs done to American Indians which has absolutely nothing to do with the football team. As far as I can see, it really doesn't even have any place in the discussion.

The last thing they want is to have an honest discussion that would focus on a real question like actual harm, because they know damn well there ain't any. That's a discussion they lose and they know it.

Their attitude is basically, "How dare the team owner not do what we tell him to do." The arrogance is palpable...

Snyder had it exactly right when he said this:

“Washington Redskins owner Dan Snyder said Tuesday it's time for people to "focus on reality" concerning Native American matters instead of criticizing the team's nickname. "We understand the issues out there, and we're not an issue," Snyder said. "The real issues are real-life issues, real-life needs, and I think it's time that people focus on reality."

Here here,

Seems to me a good place to start dealing with real issues actually effecting the lives of people, would be for these "tribal leaders" to examine how they conduct their own affairs in running their reservations, and management of tribal resources. And if they don't want to do it, maybe somebody should do it for them.

[BoSoxGal]

Jim, I really don't get this. You are such a smart guy, and you seem generally reasonable - but sometimes you just go off the skids. Any reputable historian will tell you that redskin was never a term of pride for Indians, it's a white - imposed name that is only 'complimentary' in a white - imposed version of history.

What difference does it really make to you if the same team with the same sports history is known as the red hawks? That's a great name celebrating a great raptor with a fierce predatory spirit and it offends nobody.

What's so terrible about that?

[Gob]

Maybe the American Indians should "reclaim" the term, like Afro-Americans reclaimed nigger, and gay people reclaimed queer?

[Gob]

Some people are able to understand that "redskin" is the same as calling a team the "nigger, jew-boy, chink, jap, dago, wetbacks" and some are too stupid to get it.

So, rubato believes that the teams known as the Washington Niggers, or the Washington Jew-Boys, or the Washington Chinks, or the Washington Japs, or the Washington Dagos, or the Washington Wetbacks, would have survived with those names from 1937 to today, as the Washington Redskins have.

Some people are able to understand that this would not have happened, and some are too stupid to get it.

[BoSoxGal]

Hasn't Oz gone to great lengths to be sensitive to aboriginal people, Gob? Are there aboriginal sports mascots with racial slurs as names?

[RayThom]

Here's the Washington Redskins Chief Wahoo's squaw... Woohoo!

[Gob]

Hasn't Oz gone to great lengths to be sensitive to aboriginal people, Gob? Are there aboriginal sports mascots with racial slurs as names?

Well yes, who wouldn't want to be sensitive,? But the "slurs" thing still stands unproven in terms of the "Redskins".

See also;

The NRL has confirmed the Indigenous All Stars game will return to the rugby league calendar in 2015 at a meeting with club CEO's today at Rugby League Central.

The popular representative fixture will be staged on February 14 next year, most likely at Suncorp Stadium after being postponed this year due to the inaugural NRL Auckland Nines tournament and a number of stars being involved in the World Cup last November.

THE INDIGENOUS All-Stars squad that will play Richmond in Alice Springs on February 8 has been announced, with a swag of big names set to play, including Carlton goalsneak Eddie Betts, Essendon ruckman Patrick Ryder and West Coast recruit Sharrod Wellingham.



A number of first-year players are also in the squad, including Geelong draftee Brad Hartman and Port Adelaide's Jake Neade.

Sydney Swans premiership player Michael O’Loughlin will coach the All-Stars.

Surely it would be more productive to have "indigenous Americans" sports teams facilitated and supported? They could be called the "All American Redskins" or something.

Ps. For our American chums, these are two different sports...

[BoSoxGal]

the "slurs" thing still stands unproven in terms of the "Redskins".

Because LJ doesn't agree it's a slur?

Because otherwise the great weight of evidence is definitely in support of 'the slur thing,' from dictionary definitions to the position of Native Americans to the US Patent Office and the majority of this board.

Saying 'redskin' isn't a slur is like saying climate change isn't happening, because only 97% of scientists assert that it is.

I 'get' that as a lifelong fan LJ has a somewhat emotional attachment that may cloud his perspective, but I'm a bit surprised by yours.

I wish Hen were here to weigh in, given the work with aboriginals that her dad engaged in - looks like she's not posting recently is that a short term thing or what?