Redskins

[Huntr]

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.

Holy shit I skipped right over this gem.

 

[ACamp1900]

Sidenote, but on this whole "Whites are acting offended"... is there any white on this board whose family has been in this country for more than a few generations that doesn't have some kind of native blood in them somewhere?? It's pretty rare to find a 'white american' without native blood on some branch isn't it?

 

[Irish2155]

Wow...I have no interest in this debate but its having a trickle-down effect. A local high school (the Redskins) is now having the same conversations.

 

[Bluto]

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





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.

This is a really good post. I agree that it is a nuanced and complex issue. Anyhow, no way the Cleveland mascot gets renewed. They would be kind of dumb to not just pull the plug on that right now and move on.

 

[Bogtrotter07]

Fighting Irish is a slur. Redskins isn't.

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

Potato eaters is a slur. Anything to do with likening an Irishman to a potato is a slur, because the potato was central to the attempted genocide of the Irish in the mid 1800's.

Redskin was a term actively used by the Christian moralist in their argument for Native American eradication. As Irish were considered subhuman by the English, the same was true of the English and Americans, with the Native Americans. The Irish were different (subhuman) because of their drinking, diet, and bare feet; Native Americans were different because of their skin color and their strange (non-Christian) customs.

Some of the arguments in this thread have been stupid, much less than what I expected. Here is what an expert has to say:

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/AJKfs4ZnbNE" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

[gkIrish]

Holy shit I skipped right over this gem.

So asking someone to enlighten me after I admit I don't know something is a "gem" to you. Cool.

 

[Bluto]

Wow...I have no interest in this debate but its having a trickle-down effect. A local high school (the Redskins) is now having the same conversations.

Good at least they are having a conversation about it.

 

[gkIrish]

Potato eaters is a slur. Anything to do with likening an Irishman to a potato is a slur, because the potato was central to the attempted genocide of the Irish in the mid 1800's.

Redskin was a term actively used by the Christian moralist in their argument for Native American eradication. As Irish were considered subhuman by the English, the same was true of the English and Americans, with the Native Americans. The Irish were different (subhuman) because of their drinking, diet, and bare feet; Native Americans were different because of their skin color and their strange (non-Christian) customs.

Some of the arguments in this thread have been stupid, much less than what I expected. Here is what an expert has to say:

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/AJKfs4ZnbNE" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

For the record I wasn't arguing Fighting Irish is a slur while Redskins isn't. I'm just highlighting that you can't be proven wrong if you think so.

And John Oliver is funny but not an expert in anything but being a comedian.

 

[Emcee77]

Holy shit I skipped right over this gem.

I know, surprising, right? I wasn't sure if serious at first but I think he was. I took it seriously, anyway. It just goes to show that people come from a lot of different perspectives.

 

[Huntr]

It's really not all that nuanced. Some ppl care, some don't. Doesn't change the meaning of the word.


The only debatable issue is if you care enough to want the football team to change their name. If not, well, then, ok, feel free to not care about others' bigotry. Some ppl do.

 

[gkIrish]

I know, surprising, right? I wasn't sure if serious at first but I think he was. I took it seriously, anyway.

I know about their tax and other advantages and know that they choose to live on reservations where the conditions aren't great. So I was asking you to tell me how they are being discriminated against right now as a whole.

 

[GATTACA!]

10 percent is a lot of people

His point is that 90% are fine with it or like it and feel honored to have a beloved team named after them.

10% of the population want to annex California. Sounds stupid but 10% is a arge number so what can you do? Gotta listen to them.

 

[Bluto]

So asking someone to enlighten me after I admit I don't know something is a "gem" to you. Cool.

Modern social statistics of Native Americans - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[gkIrish]

1/5 of Americans believe Obama is Muslim
25% of Americans don't believe in Evolution
Half of our Congressmen don't believe in Global Warming

Just because a significant minority of people think something doesn't make it true.

 

[Jebediah Springfield]

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.

1/5 of Americans believe Obama is Muslim
25% of Americans don't believe in Evolution
Half of our Congressmen don't believe in Global Warming

Just because a significant minority of people think something doesn't make it true.

Huh?

 

[gkIrish]

Huh?

Huh? right back at you.

 

[GoIrish41]

His point is that 90% are fine with it or like it and feel honored to have a beloved team named after them.

10% of the population want to annex California. Sounds stupid but 10% is a arge number so what can you do? Gotta listen to them.

I would be willing to bet that among the 90% many do not care at all. That is not to say that they are honored by the term.

 

[IrishLax]

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.

It's really not all that nuanced. Some ppl care, some don't. Doesn't change the meaning of the word.

I already provided quotes and link to how this is debated, and how there are experts who would disagree with your assertion.

Fag is a slur. Nigger is a slur. Kike is a slur. WOP, WASP, etc. are slurs. And I'd bet everyone in this thread has heard them used as such during their lifetime.

I have never in my life heard Redskin used as a slur towards someone. No Native Americans I've talked to have ever said they've heard it used as a slur. Have you heard it used as a slur? Has ANYONE here actually heard it used as a slur in real life? Disparaging basically means belittling... can anyone here honestly say that they've ever heard "redskin" used to belittle someone?

The reason it's nuanced is that for the trademarks to be removed the petitioners are supposed to have to prove that the trademark used a phrase that was disparaging at the time the trademark was issued. So it doesn't matter that the term WASN'T a slur at its inception in 1800s or that it BECAME a slur at the point in time Bogtrotter references... it only, legally, matters if it WAS a slur when the Redskins applied and received their trademark. Judging by the lack of outrage/offense/action at that time, I have a hard time believing that Native Americans found it wildly out of line and disparaging. That last part is my opinion, I do not have hard facts and numbers to support it. The petitioners, likewise, had no facts or numbers to support their position. Just feelings.

Whether it is socially the responsible thing to change the name now in 2014 because there is an ever-growing amount of Native Americans who take offense to is is a completely different argument... which we can have or not have but I've got to run to a baseball game for a couple hours now.

 

[Jebediah Springfield]

Huh? right back at you.

Your simultaneously arguing that a lot people believe something is racist so we shouldn't argue that it isn't and that "Just because a significant minority of people think something doesn't make it true."

So what are we basing our judgement on?

 

[dshans]

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?

Well, I'm an American of Irish lineage. My paternal grandparents were Irish emigrants. I'm not all that fond of "Fighting" Irish. I'm also not at all fond of the Leprechaun Logo. The fists up stereotype is bad enough, but it's just damn butt ugly to boot.

Were the term to exclusively be associated with the Irish spirit in "scrapping" against Bloody Brits rather than harkening the image of brawling men being herded into a "Paddy Wagon" (while wearing inaccurately comical outfits) my attitude might be different.

Did I mention that I'm also an ND alum?

I might complain but I'm apparently constantly inebriated and too pugilistic to compose a complaint of James Joyce quality.

There was a bit of a joke making the rounds while I was there in the early '70's: How does a school, founded by French priests, with a football team coached by an Armenian and manned by Polish players come to be "The Fighting Irish?"

I guess I was just too drunk and punching whoever to pen a coherent letter.

 

[gkIrish]

Your simultaneously arguing that a lot people believe something is racist so we shouldn't argue that it isn't and that "Just because a significant minority of people think something doesn't make it true."

So what are we basing our judgement on?

Good lord you're giving me a headache. Both of those statements make complete sense and do not contradict each other at all. I fail to see what you're complaining about.

If 90% of Native Americans thought the term was derogatory then I would have absolutely no issue with forcing the Redskins to change their team name.

 

[GATTACA!]

I would be willing to bet that among the 90% many do not care at all. That is not to say that they are honored by the term.

Thats why i said " are fine with it or like it and feel honored to have a beloved team named after them. "

 

[TheChosen1]

Rename them the foreskins

 

[Jebediah Springfield]

Good lord you're giving me a headache. Both of those statements make complete sense and do not contradict each other at all. I fail to see what you're complaining about.

You used the Lord's name in vain, I'm offended and dont want to keep this discussion going.

If 90% of Native Americans thought the term was derogatory then I would have absolutely no issue with forcing the Redskins to change their team name.

I'm just saying your tying your argument to the number of people who believe something but then acknowledge that the number of people who believe something isn't related to whether something is true or not.

 

[Irishnuke]

1/5 of Americans believe Obama is Muslim
25% of Americans don't believe in Evolution
Half of our Congressmen don't believe in Global Warming

Just because a significant minority of people think something doesn't make it true.

Because it isn't real. And it's way more than 25%. But that's not what we're debating.

I never knew "Redskin" was a derogatory term until this lawsuit.

 

[philipm31]

He has no real point if he thinks that he Native Americans CHOOSE to live on reservations.

Just let him bathe in his own historical and logical inaccuracies.

 

[gkIrish]

He has no real point if he thinks that he Native Americans CHOOSE to live on reservations.

Just let him bathe in his own historical and logical inaccuracies.

Who forces a Native American to live on a reservation? They have been American citizens since 1924 and can live wherever they want.

 

[GATTACA!]

Because it isn't real. And it's way more than 25%. But that's not what we're debating.

I never knew "Redskin" was a derogatory term until this lawsuit.

 

[connor_in]

So now what? We hold an offended or not national poll every year with one million terms and if one person is offended whatsoever then that term is instantly to be stricken from our lexicon?

 

[connor_in]