The Gold?

[Lennys Tap]

Is "Indian" a racial slur?

No

[Coleman]

Is "Indian" a racial slur?

No. Misnomer maybe. Slur no. I'm still not comfortable with redskins though

[ChicosBailBonds]

No. Misnomer maybe. Slur no. I'm still not comfortable with redskins though

Fortunately most Native Americans are ok with it, so you don't have to worry about it.   

[brewcity77]

Fortunately most Native Americans are ok with it, so you don't have to worry about it.   

Throughout this whole thing you've thrown out a lot of numbers, and whether it's 57% or 91% that don't care, that means 43% or 9% that do. Isn't part of what our country is based on protecting the needs of minorities? Or does anything less than 50% not matter?

[Pakuni]

Fortunately most Native Americans are ok with it, so you don't have to worry about it.   

According to a decade-old poll of a few hundred people who identify themselves over the phone as having some Native ancestry.
But when discussing old polls, you forgot this one conducted by an actual Native media outlet of confirmed Native Americans that found 81 percent of them believe such nicknames "are predominantly offensive and deeply disparaging to Native Americans."

http://web.archive.org/web/20040301122612/http://www.indiancountry.com/?43

In all this discussion, Chico's, one thing you've never answered is whether or not you accept that Redskins is a slur.
And, if you do, how do you justify - heck, how do you cheer on - its use as a team nickname?

[ChicosBailBonds]

Fine. Make your own choice and fill in the blank: I think referring to Native Americans as "redskins" is --------

I think if you go through history, the term Redskins was a Native American term....a term THEY created.  A term, that many Native Americans tie to an honor.  I'd much rather THEY decide if it is offensive, rather than a bunch of people outraged for the sake of outrage.

Some Native Americans are offended by it.  Many Native Americans are not.  There have been three scientific polls, in all three Native Americans overwhelmingly were ok with it.  Would opinions be different today than 9 years ago?  Maybe, then again I've posted plenty of anecdotal information from current Native Americans that absolutely are 180 degrees from your opinion that the term is an insult, prejudiced, racial, or anything of the kind.  Examples from 2013, not many years ago.  Of course there will be examples the other way as well. 

Clearly, it isn't the slam dunk you make it out it to, and far less than your claim that NO WAY anyone would vote it as an homage....I've given you examples directly from Native American leaders from just a few months ago.

ME....I think it's a nickname that the people of Washington, D.C. metro area are proud to call their team and represents a proud people, for which the nickname originated from with a Native American coach and Native American players on the team.  And I think there are a bunch of people in this country that are outraged on anything they can dream up and it is their goal to continue to find the next thing to be outraged against.  That's what I think.

[Pakuni]

I think if you go through history, the term Redskins was a Native American term....a term THEY created. 

Citation needed.
Everything I've seen is that Redskins was a term created by white settlers and the term almost from the outset was derogatory.

ME....I think it's a nickname that the people of Washington, D.C. metro area are proud to call their team and represents a proud people, for which the nickname originated from with a Native American coach and Native American players on the team.  And I think there are a bunch of people in this country that are outraged on anything they can dream up and it is their goal to continue to find the next thing to be outraged against.  That's what I think.

You're ducking the question.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Throughout this whole thing you've thrown out a lot of numbers, and whether it's 57% or 91% that don't care, that means 43% or 9% that do. Isn't part of what our country is based on protecting the needs of minorities? Or does anything less than 50% not matter?

Those were scientific polls OF Native Americans, not overall populace.  Otherwise you would be arguing to protect the minority from within the minority...in other words, the minority viewpoints of the Native American community.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Citation needed.
Everything I've seen is that Redskins was a term created by white settlers and the term almost from the outset was derogatory.

You're ducking the question.

Not ducking the question, I answered it.  You may not like it, but not ducking it.  As a poster said here a few days ago, they would like to see the name Browns go away...others have said the same thing.  I lived in Cleveland for a number of years, both parents from there. It's named after Paul Brown.  There is nothing racial about it.  The Redskins, the name was a name of honor CREATED by Native Americans...a term of honor.   Are we now going to get into a situation where if language changes down the road anything can become racial?  What if someone starts using "Marquette" in the culture to depict something racial and it catches on.  Does that mean it needs to be changed, too?


On the name, I linked a video a few days ago to one of the Native American chiefs that stated it was a term created by Native Americans for Native Americans.  "Chief Dodson:   "'Redskin' isn't something given to us by the white man or the blue eyes, it was something in the Native American community that was taken from us. [It's] used also as a term of respect, because that's how we were. We respected each other with that term."   http://network.yardbarker.com/nfl/article_external/native_american_indian_chief_says_he_is_honored_by_the_name_redskins/13546634

But here is some additional info...

Smithsonian Institution senior linguist Ives Goddard spent seven months researching its history and concluded that "redskin" was first used by Native Americans in the 18th century to distinguish themselves from the white "other" encroaching on their lands and culture.

In fact, the earliest usages of "redskin" that Goddard tracked down were in statements made in 1769 by Illinois tribal chiefs involved in delicate negotiations with the British to switch loyalties away from the French.  "I shall be pleased to have you come to speak to me yourself," said one statement attributed to a chief named Mosquito. "And if any redskins do you harm, I shall be able to look out for you even at the peril of my life." The French used the phrase " peaux Rouges " -- literally "red skins" -- to translate the chief's words.

http://anthropology.si.edu/goddard/redskin.pdf

Not surprisingly, certain people don't like what Mr. Goddard of the Smithsonian has to say, especially those that don't care for the name, particularly  Suzan Shown Harjo, an activist that is against the name and sued to have the Redskins name removed from the NFL.  Go figure.

here's the money quote from one author "Professor of Law and historian J. Gordon Hylton writes about the term, "...throughout the nineteenth century, the term was essentially neutral when used by whites, reflecting neither a particularly positive or particularly negative connotation." Even Sitting Bull once remarked, "I am a red man. If the Great Spirit had desired me to be a white man he would have made me so in the first place." Regardless, over the years, the scalp-equals-redskin theory has gained traction as well-meaning people took Harjo's word on the matter as fact"

Some good stuff here

http://valhalla.law.und.nodak.edu/LawReview/issues/web_assets/pdf/86/86-4/86NDLR879.pdf

http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/opinion/redskins-not-so-black-and-white-145172

[avid1010]

Those were scientific polls OF Native Americans, not overall populace.  Otherwise you would be arguing to protect the minority from within the minority...in other words, the minority viewpoints of the Native American community.

my favorite is distinguishing polls based upon whether or not the native american lives on a reservation.

like i've said...it may be an over-correction, but i'd rather over correct than stand on the side of racists.  i would argue that we should be focusing much less on team names, and much more on people, especially politicians, that get away with consistently pushing racist views/comments. 

[brewcity77]

Those were scientific polls OF Native Americans, not overall populace.  Otherwise you would be arguing to protect the minority from within the minority...in other words, the minority viewpoints of the Native American community.

Obviously. But those opinions are the only ones that matter in this case. So if 30-40% think there's a problem, then there's probably a problem.

It doesn't affect me. I am not overly fussed one way or the other. But if Washington can change the name of their basketball team because it's offensive to shooting victims (or whoever) isn't it worth changing a team name for the sake of 30-40% of an affected population that feels it has a negative connotation?

Right now in another thread you are presenting a group of five (or more) Scoop posters as a significant group that felt Buzz should have no oversight. I agree with you that it is enough people to be considered significant. By that same token I'm surprised you feel a much larger percentage of Native Americans should be marginalized.

[WarriorInNYC]

I read this article this morning and while it isn't directly involving team nicknames and such, I thought it was still somewhat relevant to this conversation.  Particularly the paragraph below:

http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/23/opinion/cevallos-vanity-plates-free-speech/index.html?hpt=hp_t4

Being offended does not an offensive word make

As a society, we have fatally mixed up the concept of subjective versus objective when it comes to offensiveness. Because an individual is offended by a word, that word does not thereby become universally offensive.

Determining whether something is offensive must use an objective standard, which means society on the whole should concur that it is taboo. Too often when a single individual is offended, we make the illogical jump to conclude that the material offending one is now offensive to all.

Worse, we now deem material offensive not for its actual measured effect, but for its untested potential effect. No one was actually offended by Matwyuk's plate, likely not even the person who actually rejected it.

Rather, it was banned because the official imagined some potential offensiveness. In addition to confusing subjective versus objective in defining "offensive," we've placed government officials in the business of foreseeing the future, with an overly cautious eye.

[Lennys Tap]

One final time - I am in no way shape or form PC. It's stunning to me that there are people out there offended by the Cleveland Browns, brown bagging, Warriors, Braves, etc., etc., etc., but I'm equally amazed by those tone deaf enough to not see a problem with Redskin. I can hear them now - "If black people can use the N word and gays can use "cute one", why can't I? I mean, they don't seem to think it's derogatory." Common sense, people - please.

[ChicosBailBonds]

According to a decade-old poll of a few hundred people who identify themselves over the phone as having some Native ancestry.
But when discussing old polls, you forgot this one conducted by an actual Native media outlet of confirmed Native Americans that found 81 percent of them believe such nicknames "are predominantly offensive and deeply disparaging to Native Americans."

http://web.archive.org/web/20040301122612/http://www.indiancountry.com/?43

In all this discussion, Chico's, one thing you've never answered is whether or not you accept that Redskins is a slur.
And, if you do, how do you justify - heck, how do you cheer on - its use as a team nickname?

Your link doesn't work.  I do like that you mentioned a "few hundred respondents"...uhm, yes, that is how polls are done.  Every week major polling firms do these polls with similar numbers.  Hell, we predict national elections based on 1,000 people.  This is not new, the data is statstically significant so not sure what the number of respondents has to do with it unless the sample wasn't statistically significant, which it was.

I don't cheer on the Redskins....I was born in Texas (by the Grace of God) and worked Cowboys training camps through my youth as they practiced less than a mile from my childhood home.  The idea of cheering for the Redskins revolts me, not because of the name, because they are the dreaded enemy.   

Do I accept that Redskins is a slur FOR SOME PEOPLE?  Sure.  Do I accept that some people think saying UNDER GOD in the Pledge of Allegiance is horrific?  Sure.  Do I accept that some people think Browns (Cleveland Browns) is offensive?  Sure.  There will always be people that are like this.  Do I find it a slur considering I know how the term came about (by Native Americans), what its purpose was?  Do I find it a slur for the football team, considering it was named by the coach (a Native American) and several of his players (Native Americans) to honor the original purpose of the term (a honorable designation of Native Americans BY Native Americans)....no.    Now, if I was merely going to jump on the bandwagon, with no background of the name, no understanding who came up with, why it came up with...in other words, complete ignorance on it...then yes I could get there, but fortunately the research is there and not hard to find, even if the pushers of another theory don't want to call attention to it since it doesn't fit their agenda.

[ChicosBailBonds]

One final time - I am in no way shape or form PC. It's stunning to me that there are people out there offended by the Cleveland Browns, brown bagging, Warriors, Braves, etc., etc., etc., but I'm equally amazed by those tone deaf enough to not see a problem with Redskin. I can hear them now - "If black people can use the N word and gays can use "cute one", why can't I? I mean, they don't seem to think it's derogatory." Common sense, people - please.

So you ignore the origins of the term, the words (TODAY) of many Native American leaders saying it is a term of honor.  Do you not also understand there is COMMON SENSE with that conclusion, as well?  NO WAY.  Are they tone deaf?  

And quite frankly, your example is ridiculous.  If you were to ask African Americans if they would be ok with a team nickname of that word, the overwhelming response would be no.  They have asked Native Americans if they are ok with the nickname Redskin, and the polls have shown overwhelming SUPPORT for it.  So I don't know why you are trying to lump those two together.  Apples and Oranges.  Plus, did the term you are talking about (N word) EVER have a positive origination?  It was a derogatory word from its inception...day one.  Never a word of honor, prestige, etc.  Again, Apples to Oranges.

[brewcity77]

They have asked Native Americans if they are ok with the nickname Redskin, and the polls have shown overwhelming SUPPORT for it.

I suppose it depends on your definition of the term "overwhelming", but let's look at the poll you have been citing.

Asked if they were offended by the name Redskins, 75% of Native American respondents in SI's poll said they were not

Okay, 75% is a decent amount, but that means 25%, or 1 in 4, were offended. I would consider 25% to be a statistically significant portion of the population.

and even on reservations, where Native American culture and influence are perhaps felt most intensely, 62% said they weren't offended.

In a presidential election, 62% is overwhelming because of ingrained voters. But if you're going to act like 38%, more than a third of the on-res population, isn't a very hefty portion of the minority, I don't know what math you are using. When it comes down to who you are offending, 62% is not even remotely overwhelming.

Overall, 69% of Native American respondents -- and 57% of those living on reservations -- feel it's O.K. for the Washington Redskins to continue using the name.

Roughly a third don't feel it's okay, and 43% of those on reservations do not support the use of the name. Again, you must not understand the meaning of the word overwhelming. Nearly half of the on-res Native Americans feel it is not OK that the Redskins name continue to be used, yet you say there is overwhelming support. The poll you yourself posted disproves your most recent post.

Again, you consider 5 posters on Scoop to be a significant enough portion of the population of probably at least 500 active posters, yet you don't consider 43% of the Native American population to be significant enough to listen to? The two viewpoints you take in this thread and the other simply cannot be reconciled.

[Lennys Tap]

Here's Wikipedia on the subject: "Redskin" is a racial descriptor for Native Americans, the origins of which are disputed. Although by SOME accounts not originally having negative intent, the term is now defined by dictionaries of American English as "usually offensive", "diparaging", "insulting" and "taboo" and is avoided in public usage with the exception of its continued use as a name for sports teams.

Chicos, you're usually a big fan of the dictionary - how is something that's usually offensive, disparaging, insulting, taboo and avoided in public usage not a slur. Common sense and common decency seem to have spoken on the matter.

[ChicosBailBonds]

I suppose it depends on your definition of the term "overwhelming", but let's look at the poll you have been citing.

Okay, 75% is a decent amount, but that means 25%, or 1 in 4, were offended. I would consider 25% to be a statistically significant portion of the population.

What is the cutoff...10%?  25%?  45%?    No one is saying there isn't a valid number that are against it, but 90% in one poll, 75% in another are ok with the name...those are huge numbers from the very people that are supposed to totally offended by this.  With the amount of venom that some are spewing on this and how unconscionable it is supposed to be, wouldn't you think the group that is supposedly targeted would get at least 50%?  Hell, I would expect that group to have 75% against it.  Not 25% and 10%. 

Apply it to your life.  If the next firefighter union vote comes out and 90% of the membership is for it and 10% are against, what is that considered?  Or 75% to 25%?  Are you not going to approve a contract because 25% didn't ratify it?  I'm sorry, but 1 in 4 that are offended....yeah, it happens.  You mentioned presidential elections...we have presidents getting 53% of the vote and claiming mandates.  What is 75% or 90%, then? 

[ChicosBailBonds]

Here's Wikipedia on the subject: "Redskin" is a racial descriptor for Native Americans, the origins of which are disputed. Although by SOME accounts not originally having negative intent, the term is now defined by dictionaries of American English as "usually offensive", "diparaging", "insulting" and "taboo" and is avoided in public usage with the exception of its continued use as a name for sports teams.

Chicos, you're usually a big fan of the dictionary - how is something that's usually offensive, disparaging, insulting, taboo and avoided in public usage not a slur. Common sense and common decency seem to have spoken on the matter.

Wikipedia...LOL.

I gave you direct lineage to the name (Smithsonian Institute), examples from Native Americans, etc....clearly the person writing your definition above is exactly what Reilly was talking about.  Someone offended for someone that isn't offended.  Maybe next time they should have Native Americans write the definition. 

I guess you continue to ignore what the majority of Native Americans think....you must think you are superior to them and that they are incapable of deciding how to feel, but you will gladly do it for them.  There are many like that on this topic, but by golly you can answer for them and show them how offended they should be.

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

What is the cutoff...10%?  25%?  45%?    No one is saying there isn't a valid number that are against it, but 90% in one poll, 75% in another are ok with the name...those are huge numbers from the very people that are supposed to totally offended by this.  With the amount of venom that some are spewing on this and how unconscionable it is supposed to be, wouldn't you think the group that is supposedly targeted would get at least 50%?  Hell, I would expect that group to have 75% against it.  Not 25% and 10%. 

Apply it to your life.  If the next firefighter union vote comes out and 90% of the membership is for it and 10% are against, what is that considered?  Or 75% to 25%?  Are you not going to approve a contract because 25% didn't ratify it?  I'm sorry, but 1 in 4 that are offended....yeah, it happens.  You mentioned presidential elections...we have presidents getting 53% of the vote and claiming mandates.  What is 75% or 90%, then? 

Just to play devil's advocate, eventually, "Redskins" will be considered offensive by 51% of people.

Are that point, are you going to advocate that the name be changed? Is there a magic number in your mind?

[brewcity77]

What is the cutoff...10%?  25%?  45%?    No one is saying there isn't a valid number that are against it, but 90% in one poll, 75% in another are ok with the name...those are huge numbers from the very people that are supposed to totally offended by this.  With the amount of venom that some are spewing on this and how unconscionable it is supposed to be, wouldn't you think the group that is supposedly targeted would get at least 50%?  Hell, I would expect that group to have 75% against it.  Not 25% and 10%. 

Apply it to your life.  If the next firefighter union vote comes out and 90% of the membership is for it and 10% are against, what is that considered?  Or 75% to 25%?  Are you not going to approve a contract because 25% didn't ratify it?  I'm sorry, but 1 in 4 that are offended....yeah, it happens.  You mentioned presidential elections...we have presidents getting 53% of the vote and claiming mandates.  What is 75% or 90%, then? 

You're still ignoring my point that you are claiming 1% of Scoop seems to be statistically significant in the Pilarz thread but here 43% is not.

Second, your example really doesn't apply, but we aren't talking about a majority rule, we're talking about use of a term offending enough people to justify it not be used.

If you want to apply it to our lives, let's say a family of 5 with 2 sons and 1 daughter has only female dogs. The father and sons decide to start calling the dogs bitches. After all, like Redskins, it's an accurate term, right? So if the 60% majority of the family feels the term bitches should be used by the family on a daily basis, should we ignore the feelings of the wife and daughter if they feel offended? After all, they are in the minority, so why should them taking offense matter?

[Lennys Tap]

Wikipedia...LOL.

Webster's definition in 2013 (noun) USUALLY offensive - American Indian LOL

[ChicosBailBonds]

Just to play devil's advocate, eventually, "Redskins" will be considered offensive by 51% of people.

Are that point, are you going to advocate that the name be changed? Is there a magic number in your mind?

Yes, I think eventually there will be enough sheeple that can't think for themselves and will get there or will be convinced that they need to be offended...cave into pressure.  It's worked so well with others.  Imagine being called an Uncle Tom if you don't think a certain way...eventually you start to conform.....love peer pressure, ain't it great. 

I don't have a number, I prefer to let a PRIVATE entity in a PRIVATE league doing PRIVATE business sell their product to their customers.  Those customers, currently want the name.  The people the name represents, also have shown support for the name.  When it changes, will be up to that private entity to decide.  Then we can move on to the next outrage...hoping its the Browns, followed by the Patriots...I mean, Patriots rings hollow with certain groups in this country who thing we are overly patriotic as it is. Has to go. So I hope they are mounting their campaigns.  Los Angeles Angels, clearly on the list because atheists have got to be having their eyeballs bleed every time Sports Center comes on and gives an Angels score.  That should be followed by the Warriors for obvious reasons...the anti War crowd is offended.  Of course the Blackhawks (yes, I know why they are called this...doesn't matter, someone is outraged somewhere), etc.  Any nickname that represents any human being (the DiUlio doctrine) should not be far behind....it's beneath us as human beings...by golly....and by golly I'm outraged by it.

[ChicosBailBonds]

You're still ignoring my point that you are claiming 1% of Scoop seems to be statistically significant in the Pilarz thread but here 43% is not.

Second, your example really doesn't apply, but we aren't talking about a majority rule, we're talking about use of a term offending enough people to justify it not be used.

If you want to apply it to our lives, let's say a family of 5 with 2 sons and 1 daughter has only female dogs. The father and sons decide to start calling the dogs bitches. After all, like Redskins, it's an accurate term, right? So if the 60% majority of the family feels the term bitches should be used by the family on a daily basis, should we ignore the feelings of the wife and daughter if they feel offended? After all, they are in the minority, so why should them taking offense matter?

Where have I said 1% of Scoop is statistically significant?

Second, and I ask...what is the cutoff?  If it only takes ONE person to be offended by something, is that the rule?  What's the cutoff...1 person, 1%, 4%, etc?  It sounds like you are saying all it takes is one.  Talk about the tyrany of the minority.

Your example still doesn't make sense.  They have polled ONLY Native Americans and in one poll 75% support it and in the other 90% and in the other I believe the number was over 80%.   If your example was truly apples to apples, you would ask only women and you would survey a statistically signficant sample of ONLY women, just as those polls asked ONLY Native Americans.   The fact is, when they asked only Native Americans, they didn't object, not even close to objecting. I would expect the women would object, and thus the term would not be used.  This is NOT what happened with Native Americans, not by a long shot.

So back to the question.....what's the minority of a minority that matters?  What's the cutoff?  How many people have to be offended.  >1 ?

I object to Golden Eagles...so do a large percentage of other MU alumni.  Should we change it?   

[ChicosBailBonds]

Webster's definition in 2013 (noun) USUALLY offensive - American Indian LOL

Don't you find it interesting that Websters doesn't include the definition that Native Americans have said about it being an honorable term?  I wonder why that is?  I wonder why they have ignored the definition from the very people that CREATED the term.  Interesting.  Hmm...