Washington Redskins change their name

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

I've dug in on several levels...it's a private company and they can do what they want. 

Absolutely. I don't think anyone has challenged that. Of course they do fall under the authority of the NFL, so the decision could be taken out of their hands.

The name has been around for 80 years and no team is going to name themselves after a nickname that brings dishonor to them....teams pick names of strength, pride, virtue, etc.   

Intent doesn't matter. Perception does. I'm sure Marquette created Willie Wampum with the intent of having a mascot that embodies strength, pride, and virtue. But looking back on it, it is nothing but a disgrace.

Removing names like this further push Native Americans out of the mainstream, but that view has been called dumb here by intellects like Lenny when that view is actually held by some Native Americans...go figure

I accept this argument. But I challenge that there is a way to keep Native Americans from being pushed out of the mainstream without using a racial slur as the mascot. I think changing it to the name of a local tribe would be a great compromise.

Let the market decide, if the name if offensive, then people can stop buying tickets, merchandise, etc.

I agree with this as well. No one is advocating for a government order to change the mascot. I think this process has started. It doesn't have enough strength now, but will eventually.

Someone has to stick up for Native Americans and their views....the irony is that I'm speaking up for the views that some don't like, yet that is one of the exact arguments the other side is using.  It seems to me, the side I am sticking up for....their views don't count

This is a noble goal. We are doing the same thing. You are sticking up for the 1-10% of Native Americans who would be impacted negatively if the Redskins moniker changed. We are sticking up for the 30% of Native Americans who are impacted negatively by the Redskins moniker remaining. To me, this is a utilitarian no brainer.

[Lennys Tap]

My apologies. Seriously.

Accepted and thanks.

[ChicosBailBonds]

This is a noble goal. We are doing the same thing. You are sticking up for the 1-10% of Native Americans who would be impacted negatively if the Redskins moniker changed. We are sticking up for the 30% of Native Americans who are impacted negatively by the Redskins moniker remaining. To me, this is a utilitarian no brainer.

Please quantify both numbers and tell me how you derive at them.  Also, please quantify impacted negatively....is a nickname in Washington, D.C. preventing a Native American in Oklahoma from earning a living, going to school, etc?  You may be right, but I'd like to know where your numbers and broad statements of impact come from.  To me, there are far far far far more important issues that negatively impact Native Americans that if the bed wetting crowd would get behind could actually improve their lives more than anything a nickname does or doesn't do.

[ChicosBailBonds]

I expect distortions of my positions from Chico. Not from you. I don't called Native Americans (or any group in general) dumb. All I've said, time after time, is that redskin is a slur by definition. It's true. Undeniably true, as you have pointed out. Some Native Americans are unaware of this, some know and oppose its use, some know and don't and still others (like Chico himself) know but still think it's great. The uninformed aren't necessarily dumb - lots of smart people are uniformed on lots of issues. That leaves the logical (not dumb), the apathetic (not dumb) and the illogical/stubborn/reactionaries (not dumb). Flying the flag of bigotry while professing love for the victim (Chico's position) isn't, by definition, dumb, but I certainly think it's wrong.  

Some Native Americans are "unaware of this".....sounds like a dog whisper to me.  Then of course, when those that ARE aware of it and STILL want to keep the name, you call people like that bigots, unethnical, ignorant...but only if they are a poster here or a white guy somewhere else.  But apparently those words, WHICH YOU USED, don't apply to Native Americans that want to keep the name?

LOL.  Sorry, but I haven't distorted your position one damn bit.  YOU were the one that called people that support the name in those terms.  So, by common sense, if Native Americans support it, you are calling them the same names.  You can try to spin out of it all you want.

Finally, when Native Americans say it is NOT A SLUR, then how is it a slur?  You two have decided to use a definition of the word Redskin that states it is a slur....what you should have done is look at the definition of the word slur.  That's the biggest part of this whole thing that you aren't processing.  If someone that is supposedly slurred doesn't think it is a slur, then there is no slurring action being taken in their view.  Maybe it's because they are uneducated, or unaware...tsk tsk.  Or maybe, they just don't find it to be a slur.  Imagine that.

The definition of a slur is that a term or insinuation, etc "is likely to insult them or damage their reputation."  If the party that is supposedly slurred does not believe they are insulted, does not believe it hurts their reputation (in fact, they find it a term of endearment or even honor), that isn't a slur.   Yet, in your high and mighty view, this is settled....no, wait, it's "UNDENIABLY TRUE".  No, it isn't....because you have failed to define what a slur is and who is actually being slurred has to believe that is the case.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

Please quantify both numbers and tell me how you derive at them.  Also, please quantify impacted negatively....is a nickname in Washington, D.C. preventing a Native American in Oklahoma from earning a living, going to school, etc?  You may be right, but I'd like to know where your numbers and broad statements of impact come from.  To me, there are far far far far more important issues that negatively impact Negative Americans that if the bed wetting crowd would get behind could actually improve their lives more than anything a nickname does or doesn't do.

The 30% came from the poll you have cited frequently. The 1-10% was an educated guess on my part. The "negative impact" would be defined by me as a non expert as the psychological dissonance caused by living in a country where the dominate culture thinks so little of my ethnicity that they use a racial slur for my people as a mascot. But I am a non-expert. You could also use the American Psychological Association's study which I linked to earlier in the thread.

http://www.apa.org/pi/oema/resources/indian-mascots.aspx

Are they bed wetters too?

And I do agree, there are many more important issues that need to be solved. But that doesn't mean this one doesn't need to be solved.

Again, you are very good at pointing out why the other side is flawed. You are very bad at pointing out the benefits of your side.

[ChicosBailBonds]

The 30% came from the poll you have cited frequently. The 1-10% was an educated guess on my part. The "negative impact" would be defined by me as a non expert as the psychological dissonance caused by living in a country where the dominate culture thinks so little of my ethnicity that they use a racial slur for my people as a mascot. But I am a non-expert. You could also use the American Psychological Association's study which I linked to earlier in the thread.

http://www.apa.org/pi/oema/resources/indian-mascots.aspx

Are they bed wetters too?

And I do agree, there are many more important issues that need to be solved. But that doesn't mean this one doesn't need to be solved.

Again, you are very good at pointing out why the other side is flawed. You are very bad at pointing out the benefits of your side.

The 30% merely stated the don't like the nickname....what I'm asking is how does that negatively impact them as you described?  How so, to what degree, what does negatively impact even mean in your definition?   Can't get a job?  Don't qualify for health insurance?  Lowers self-esteem?  How do you quantify any of those things?  I think you are extrapolating 30% that don't like the name to somehow state this has a negative impact and that's a very broad statement to make. 

I think I have pointed out the benefits to my side of the argument many times, you may not agree with them....thus I may be "very bad" at it.      

[brandx]

Just keep posting 'til you drive everyone away.

You have over 125 posts in this one thread alone - all saying the same thing.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

The 30% merely stated the don't like the nickname....what I'm asking is how does that negatively impact them as you described?  How so, to what degree, what does negatively impact even mean in your definition?   Can't get a job?  Don't qualify for health insurance?  Lowers self-esteem?  How do you quantify any of those things?  I think you are extrapolating 30% that don't like the name to somehow state this has a negative impact and that's a very broad statement to make. 

I gave you a well vetted study done by experts in the field. Not sure what more you want.

I think I have pointed out the benefits to my side of the argument many times, you may not agree with them....thus I may be "very bad" at it.      

You have listed five reasons you were fighting for this. Four of them were not benefits for keeping Redskins, they were reasons why changing the Redskins mascot is a flawed idea. One of them was a benefit for keeping the Redskins.

[Coleman]

Like MU82, I am also retiring from this thread. I always end up feeling frustrated with these exchanges with Chico and its just not worth the effort anymore, I have better things to do. Going for a run now. See you all on another thread.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Marijuana.....First of all, it is not always a felony.  Second, I just ask for consistency.  More and more studies showing the health harms caused by it, be it heart, brain, etc.  We can't wait to get rid of tobacco in this country and tax it to such extremes and sue companies to the point of ridiculousness, but we're all fine and dandy of bringing in this drug for new revenues.  Why the double standard?  Who does one sue down the road when this all goes to hell?  The gov't?  LOL.  

And another out today....  http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/teens-who-smoke-cannabis-daily-seven-times-more-likely-commit-suicide-1464983

[ChicosBailBonds]

I gave you a well vetted study done by experts in the field. Not sure what more you want.

Honestly, don't recall seeing them.  Could you provide again.


We will agree to disagree on the five reasons.  Private company making their own decisions is a benefit regardless of what the name is, as it is core the principles private vs public ownership.  Just one example. 

[Lennys Tap]

Finally, when Native Americans say it is NOT A SLUR, then how is it a slur?  You two have decided to use a definition of the word Redskin that states it is a slur....what you should have done is look at the definition of the word slur.  That's the biggest part of this whole thing that you aren't processing.  If someone that is supposedly slurred doesn't think it is a slur, then there is no slurring action being taken in their view.  Maybe it's because they are uneducated, or unaware...tsk tsk.  Or maybe, they just don't find it to be a slur.  Imagine that.

The definition of a slur is that a term or insinuation, etc "is likely to insult them or damage their reputation."  If the party that is supposedly slurred does not believe they are insulted, does not believe it hurts their reputation (in fact, they find it a term of endearment or even honor), that isn't a slur.   Yet, in your high and mighty view, this is settled....no, wait, it's "UNDENIABLY TRUE".  No, it isn't....because you have failed to define what a slur is and who is actually being slurred has to believe that is the case.

You continue to miss the point. I'm not the one who has decided that "redskin" is a slur. It's the dictionary - you know, that pesky book of definitions that you have so often in the past used to defend yourself (here's where you would say something about irony and hypocrisy). When your efforts result in a new definition -  how about "redskin", (noun) formerly a term used to denigrate Native Americans, formerly a slur (see porch monkey, spic, wop, etc.), now a term that honors those same peoples - then I'll embrace your view. Until then, though, you're just a guy twisting himself into a pretzel trying to defend the bigoted and the backward with silly arguments that are reminiscent of the Clintonian "that depends on what your definition of is is". Like others, I too have grown weary. Reasonable people can easily distinguish between what honors and what denigrates. They know that "warrior" and "redskin" carry opposite connotations and are not at all similar, let alone synonymous. The hardcore PC crowd, though, is anything but reasonable. Same goes for you.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

Honestly, don't recall seeing them.  Could you provide again.


We will agree to disagree on the five reasons.  Private company making their own decisions is a benefit regardless of what the name is, as it is core the principles private vs public ownership.  Just one example. 

You quoted it in your last post.

http://www.apa.org/pi/oema/resources/indian-mascots.aspx

[MU82]

I had dropped out of this conversation but I'm dropping back in after letters offering different viewpoints appeared in the Charlotte Observer the last few days.

In Friday's Observer, a Lumbee Indian said he was "very proud of being called a redskin" and said he resents it being termed a slur. He said "over 90% of the American Indians have no problem with the word."

In today's Observer, another Lumbee Indian wrote that he had to "vehemently disagree" with the first guy's assertions. He said he not only resented being labeled a redskin but would "not stand by and allow someone to address me by that name without some type of swift response." He concluded by saying: "I don't know where he generated his 90% approval rating from American Indians for the 'redskins' name, but this statistic has no basis in fact."

I've already articulated my stance, so this is just food for thought.

[ChicosBailBonds]

You continue to miss the point. I'm not the one who has decided that "redskin" is a slur. It's the dictionary - you know, that pesky book of definitions that you have so often in the past used to defend yourself (here's where you would say something about irony and hypocrisy). When your efforts result in a new definition -  how about "redskin", (noun) formerly a term used to denigrate Native Americans, formerly a slur (see porch monkey, spic, wop, etc.), now a term that honors those same peoples - then I'll embrace your view. Until then, though, you're just a guy twisting himself into a pretzel trying to defend the bigoted and the backward with silly arguments that are reminiscent of the Clintonian "that depends on what your definition of is is". Like others, I too have grown weary. Reasonable people can easily distinguish between what honors and what denigrates. They know that "warrior" and "redskin" carry opposite connotations and are not at all similar, let alone synonymous. The hardcore PC crowd, though, is anything but reasonable. Same goes for you.

I think you miss the point...to be slurred one has to feel they are slurred against.  That's what gives the word meaning.  As MU82 points out below and I have countless times, there are many Native Americans that DO NOT BELIEVE IT IS A SLUR....THEY DO NOT FEEL SLURRED BY THE WORD.  Some are in the opposite camp, but it's not a slur if you don't believe you are slurred against.

I'm glad you find the dictionary wonderful....who defines words for the dictionary?  Who gets to decide a word is a slur or not?  Is there a committee?  No different than reading history books.  It's who tells the story of history that often gives history it's meaning, but that doesn't mean that is what happened in totality. 

There's a word used here in the US that is defined as a name you shouldn't use against male homosexuals.  That same word is used freely in Europe that means a tiring task as a noun, or even as a verb to work tirelessly.  It also is slang for a cigarette.  This just in, words have different meanings to different people, different cultures, etc.  AND THAT INCLUDES Native Americans that disagree on this particular word, some hate it and many do not.

[brandx]

Ellenson's Tap - just give it up. Until every single  Native American has been polled and has rejected the Redskin name as a slur, some will continue to think it is perfectly fine to use that slur. Maybe it makes them feel better about their own pale skin to denigrate others.

[jesmu84]

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/rnK-jYzaWtw?hl=en_US&amp;amp;version=3" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" class="bbc_link bbc_flash_disabled new_win">http://www.youtube.com/v/rnK-jYzaWtw?hl=en_US&amp;amp;version=3</a>

[ChicosBailBonds]

I laughed

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/rnK-jYzaWtw?hl=en_US&amp;amp;version=3" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" class="bbc_link bbc_flash_disabled new_win">http://www.youtube.com/v/rnK-jYzaWtw?hl=en_US&amp;amp;version=3</a>

Vulgar, rude, low brow, but dammit if South Park doesn't come up with some of the best and hilarious social commentary of the current day and age.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Truly amazing   

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tim-graham/2014/09/25/washpost-columnist-blusters-obamas-fcc-will-ban-word-redskins-tv

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

Truly amazing   

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tim-graham/2014/09/25/washpost-columnist-blusters-obamas-fcc-will-ban-word-redskins-tv

Not the route I would prefer this to be handled, but I understand the argument. If other racial slurs are banned by the FCC why not Redskin?

Ultimately I think this will fail, and part of me hope that is does. Forcing a change like this is a hollow victory. It doesn't foster any learning or education, it just breeds resentment...similar to the Marquette name change. True victory is the Redskins' administration taking ownership of the mistake they have made and apologizing for it. That's the only way the transition can be handled gracefully.

[GGGG]

Not the route I would prefer this to be handled, but I understand the argument. If other racial slurs are banned by the FCC why not Redskin?

Ultimately I think this will fail, and part of me hope that is does. Forcing a change like this is a hollow victory. It doesn't foster any learning or education, it just breeds resentment...similar to the Marquette name change. True victory is the Redskins' administration taking ownership of the mistake they have made and apologizing for it. That's the only way the transition can be handled gracefully.

Exactly right.  If this changed is forced upon the team via the FCC and the like, it gives people like Chicos the ability to play the victim.  Most people know that the name is wrong.  It should be changed, not by the government, but simply because it is the right thing to do.

[Coleman]

Not the route I would prefer this to be handled, but I understand the argument. If other racial slurs are banned by the FCC why not Redskin?

Ultimately I think this will fail, and part of me hope that is does. Forcing a change like this is a hollow victory. It doesn't foster any learning or education, it just breeds resentment...similar to the Marquette name change. True victory is the Redskins' administration taking ownership of the mistake they have made and apologizing for it. That's the only way the transition can be handled gracefully.

Agree with this completely.

Agree with FCC's sentiment, but disagree with the tactic.

[Coleman]

Exactly right.  If this changed is forced upon the team via the FCC and the like, it gives people like Chicos the ability to play the victim.  Most people know that the name is wrong.  It should be changed, not by the government, but simply because it is the right thing to do.

Precisely. I agree with you.


However it does raise the question...if the one person who is capable of doing the right thing (Dan Snyder) refuses to do the right thing, should anything else be done by those who have the ability to do something?

I think the generic answer is yes. I just don't think this was the right solution.

[Lennys Tap]

Not the route I would prefer this to be handled, but I understand the argument. If other racial slurs are banned by the FCC why not Redskin?

Ultimately I think this will fail, and part of me hope that is does. Forcing a change like this is a hollow victory. It doesn't foster any learning or education, it just breeds resentment...similar to the Marquette name change. True victory is the Redskins' administration taking ownership of the mistake they have made and apologizing for it. That's the only way the transition can be handled gracefully.

The Dan Snyder/Chicos crowd is dug in. Expecting a come to Jesus moment from them is probably folly but anything's possible, I suppose.

The resentment that is still felt over the "Warriors" nickname is justified. All the "education" in the world can't turn that word into a negative, let alone a racial slur. Not in the same ballpark with "Redskin".