Redskins

[gkIrish]

Then it gets changed.

That's absolutely ridiculous.

 

[connor_in]

How is a word a slur if most of the targeted group of people aren't offended by it?

In politically correct world, if just one person is offended by something then it is deemed bad which is wrong and not good and you will be fined and re-educated with special training.


(Wasn't that the world Stallone woke up to in "Demolition Man"?)

 

[GoIrish41]

That's absolutely ridiculous.

Doing nothing when people are offended is absolutely riduculous. That's why this whole Redskins thing is dumb.

 

[gkIrish]

Doing nothing when people are offended is absolutely riduculous. That's why this whole Redskins thing is dumb.

Doing something when the foundation of the argument isn't based in fact but rather is based on politics is dumber.

 

[ACamp1900]

Doing something when the foundation of the argument isn't based in fact but rather is based on politics is dumber.

Haha, isn't this pretty much how EVERYTHING in Washington is done???

 

[connor_in]

Doing nothing when people are offended is absolutely riduculous. That's why this whole Redskins thing is dumb.

Wait, wait, wait...so then you think that people should no longer refer to Tea Baggers, NeoCons, Repukes, etc, so on and so forth and such like et al?

 

[IrishLax]

Doing nothing when people are offended is absolutely riduculous.

I'm sorry but this is incredibly circular because... as we've pointed out... feeling offended is a completely subjective emotion. I know a couple women who get offended when the door is held open for them because #femimism. Would you argue that we ban holding the door open for women?

Many Muslims are offended by women showing skin. Should we put in mandatory dress codes?

Many Muslims are offended by anything and everything Christian. Should we remove all visible public references to Christianity?

There are conservative Christians who are offended by the Pride Week festivities in their neighborhood. Should we cancel Pride Week in DC?

The bottom line is that you cannot and should not attempt to make blanket statements rooted in what subjective emotional response someone decides to have to a stimulus. Such an approach to law and life is completely devoid of logic.

 

[Emcee77]

I have yet to see someone counter the argument about "Fighting Irish." What if a bunch of Irish Americans started causing an uproar about being stereotyped as Fighters bla bla bla and wanted us to change our name. Then what?

This seems obvious. The Irish are no longer a disadvantaged ethnic group, and the epithet "fighting" is not disparaging in any modern context (though at one time it may have been, I'll grant, as it would have played into a stereotype about Irish people, who were at one time discriminated against). The assimilation of the Irish makes this a non-issue.

I kind of like my physical characteristic rule. Objective, bright line test--and Fighting Irish passes.

 

[Huntr]

How is a word a slur if most of the targeted group of people aren't offended by it?

Doesn't matter how many are offended, the term is a racial slur.

Full stop.

Edit: Fighting Irish isn't a slur. Redskins is.

 

[dshans]

... There are people who make big bucks on being offensive to others

Ahhh, the ol' Andrew Dice Clay Defense!

 

[gkIrish]

This seems obvious. The Irish are no longer a disadvantaged ethnic group, and the epithet "fighting" is not disparaging in any modern context (though at one time it may have been, I'll grant, as it would have played into a stereotype about Irish people, who were at one time discriminated against). The assimilation of the Irish makes this a non-issue.

I kind of like my physical characteristic rule. Objective, bright line test--and Fighting Irish passes.

Wait how are Native Americans currently a disadvantaged ethnic group? If anything they benefit from numerous advantages that other American citizens do not. I admittedly don't know a lot about their current situation but please enlighten me.

So fighting was at one time a discriminatory way to describe Irish people...but isn't really anymore. That sounds a lot like the phrase "Redskin." Maybe derogatory in the past but not really anymore.

And your physical trait rule makes no sense because then we can't call white people white and black people black under that rule.

 

[gkIrish]

Doesn't matter how many are offended, the term is a racial slur.

Full stop.

Edit: Fighting Irish isn't a slur. Redskins is.

Fighting Irish is a slur. Redskins isn't.

Prove me wrong. You can't because IT'S SUBJECTIVE.

 

[Jebediah Springfield]

Fighting Irish is a slur. Redskins isn't.

Prove me wrong. You can't because IT'S SUBJECTIVE.

When did black people start complaining about words...

If no one complained about it 100 years ago, how can the same word be offensive today?

 

[ACamp1900]

If no one complained about it 100 years ago, how can the same word be offensive today?

Because we all choose to let it have power over our emotions??

 

[GATTACA!]

Where would you draw the line? 0%? 1%? 5%? 10%?

51% seems like common sense.

 

[Bluto]

Oh, so your previous item I was commenting on was serious and you believe the NFL's Washington football team is reponsible for genocide? Pardon me.

If you are offended, that is your right.

PS: I wasn't make a joke about redskins or any atrocities involved with native americans. I was making a joke and a point about your post. By the way, if a group of German Jews did put together a team called the Deutsche Juden Fussball (sorry I have no eszett on my keyboard) Mannschaft, would you be offended then?

You seem to keep failing to read the words "historic" and "context" in my posts. For your analogy to be applicable to the conversation at hand the "Redskins" in question would have to be a Native American group, which it is not.

 

[gkIrish]

When did black people start complaining about words...

If no one complained about it 100 years ago, how can the same word be offensive today?

The N word (when used by a non-black person) is universally condemned. You might get 1 black person in 100 to say they aren't offended by it if a white person calls them the N word. Reports show that only 10% of Native Americans are offended by Redskin. Don't see how that's the same.

 

[Huntr]

Fighting Irish is a slur. Redskins isn't.

Prove me wrong. You can't because IT'S SUBJECTIVE.

So, the Native Americans leading the charge against the Redskins team name and those that were the plaintiffs in the trademark case are incorrect and shouldn't feel offended?

Okey dokey.

 

[IrishLax]

Fighting Irish is a slur. Redskins isn't.

Prove me wrong. You can't because IT'S SUBJECTIVE.

To that point... from the all-powerful Wikipedia:

"linguist Ives Goddard has stated, "When it first appeared as an English expression in the early 1800s, "it came in the most respectful context and at the highest level," Goddard said in an interview. "These are white people and Indians talking together, with the white people trying to ingratiate themselves."

"Redskin" is a term for Native Americans. Its connotations are a subject of debate. The term Redskin may also be derived form Oklahoma; okla (meaning red) and humma (meaning people) ergo red people or Redskins.

It is argued by sociologist Irving Lewis Allen that slang identifiers for ethnic groups based upon physical characteristics are by nature derogatory, emphasizing the difference between the speaker and the target.[11] However, Professor Luvell Anderson of the University of Memphis, in his paper " Slurring Words ", argues that for a word to be a slur, the word must communicate ideas beyond identifying a target group, and that, slurs are offensive because the additional data contained in those words differentiates those individuals from otherwise accepted groups.

Yes, the above is all sourced. So at minimum... it's "debated."

Wikipedia ALSO goes on to talk about at length how it IS a racial slur... and also provides examples of how it IS NOT a racial slur. So for the few in this thread that continue to act like Redskin being a slur is a black-and-white, right-and-wrong issue... please stop, and appreciate the complexity and nuance of this issue on both a social and legal level.

Like I said... know many a "real" reservation-living Native American. They all had far more issue with the Cleveland Indian mascot than the Washington football team being named the Redskins.

 

[gkIrish]

So, the Native Americans leading the charge against the Redskins team name and those that were the plaintiffs in the trademark case are incorrect and shouldn't feel offended?

Okey dokey.

They have a right to feel however they want to feel. But their opinion shouldn't matter more than the opinion of the VAST MAJORITY of their group.

There are Native Americans that are 100% against the renaming of the Washington Redskins because they view it as a term of respect for the courage displayed by their ancestors. So why does their opinion mean jack shit to you?

 

[IrishLax]

So, the Native Americans leading the charge against the Redskins team name and those that were the plaintiffs in the trademark case are incorrect and shouldn't feel offended?

Okey dokey.

It's not about "correct" or "incorrect"... you fundamentally cannot be "correct" in your subjective emotional response to a stimulus. This is Logic 101.

 

[GoIrish41]

Where would you draw the line? 0%? 1%? 5%? 10%?

Maybe not a percentage but how over the top the name is. Redskins was alwqys meant to be derogatory no matter how much backtracking goes on to defend it.

 

[Bluto]

When did black people start complaining about words...

If no one complained about it 100 years ago, how can the same word be offensive today?

If I am reading this right you are assuming Blacks didn't take offense to being called n#**ers a hundred years ago?

 

[Jebediah Springfield]

The N word (when used by a non-black person) is universally condemned. You might get 1 black person in 100 to say they aren't offended by it if a white person calls them the N word. Reports show that only 10% of Native Americans are offended by Redskin. Don't see how that's the same.

You started of your argument from "it's subjective"... now you moved on to some words really are offensive if a lot of people think it is. Which one do you want to go with?

 

[Huntr]

It's not about "correct" or "incorrect"... you fundamentally cannot be "correct" in your subjective emotional response to a stimulus. This is Logic 101.

This isn't a subjective argument.

Redskins is disparaging. YOU aren't offended by it. Many Native Americans aren't offended by it.

It's still a disparaging term.

They have a right to feel however they want to feel. But their opinion shouldn't matter more than the opinion of the VAST MAJORITY of their group.

Right. "Screw the minority."

 

[gkIrish]

You started of your argument from "it's subjective"... now you moved on to some words really are offensive if a lot of people think it is. Which one do you want to go with?

I never said the N word was objectively racist. I said 99% of people think it is so it's not really reasonable to argue it isn't.

 

[Emcee77]

Wait how are Native Americans currently a disadvantaged ethnic group? If anything they benefit from numerous advantages that other American citizens do not. I admittedly don't know a lot about their current situation but please enlighten me.

So fighting was at one time a discriminatory way to describe Irish people...but isn't really anymore. That sounds a lot like the phrase "Redskin." Maybe derogatory in the past but not really anymore.

Native Americans have not fully assimilated. Some have, but there are still Native American reservations where great numbers of Native Americans live in thrall to crippling poverty, alcoholism and drug addiction, most of which is enabled, not really alleviated, by the aid they receive from the federal government.

Irish don't look different from mainstream white people. With their difference not marked on their skin, it's been much easier for them to assimilate into mainstream American society. I'm not aware of any Irish person who claims to be disadvantaged or discriminated against. Even if one or more of them may feel the name "Fighting Irish" contributes to negative stereotypes about Irish people, the proof is in the pudding: they are no worse off.

Native Americans, on the other hand, have serious problems unique to their community. If some of them think that the name "Redskins" contributes to negative stereotypes about them or makes their lot harder in life, I have to take that claim seriously. At least I am more inclined to take it seriously. It would depend on the specific claim.

I agree with you and Lax and others that it can't be strictly subjective. There has to be some objective basis for the decision. All things being equal, maybe you make a change just because a few people are offended. But you don't necessarily have to.

And your physical trait rule makes no sense because then we can't call white people white and black people black under that rule.

Right. No Chicago Whiteskins or Los Angeles Blackskins. No physical characteristics, common to an entire race or ethnic group, in the name of a sports team. Why does that not make sense? I think it's a good rule.

 

[Jebediah Springfield]

If I am reading this right you are assuming Blacks didn't take offense to being called n#**ers a hundred years ago?

I don't doubt everyone understood that it was meant to show them their place, like "boy", but find me something written on how they wanted people to talk to them. I have never found anything on it.

I think the words have power strategy is relatively new.

 

[GoIrish41]

The N word (when used by a non-black person) is universally condemned. You might get 1 black person in 100 to say they aren't offended by it if a white person calls them the N word. Reports show that only 10% of Native Americans are offended by Redskin. Don't see how that's the same.

10 percent is a lot of people

 

[gkIrish]

"Yankee" is arguably derogatory word too BTW. Southerners called northerners Yankees in the Civil War. The British also calls us "Yanks" when they make fun of us. Let's change that name.