Washington Redskins change their name

[shiloh26]

That's the most intelligent compromise I have heard suggested yet on the subject. Bravo.

The Powhatan Confederacy actually inhabited the very land Washington, DC now sits on. Unfortunately, the Powhatan people were enslaved by white settlers and then almost completely wiped out in the Anglo-Powhatan Wars, so I don't even know if such an arrangement could be made with what is left of the tribe. The history of the Powhatan people makes the Redskins nickname even more insulting. Collectively, there are about 3,000 members left so maybe some sort of agreement could be cobbled together. If it was a nickname, mascot and logo that was approved by those peoples and granted them a share of revenue for usage of the name I could potentially support such a move.

I like this a lot.  I went to a high school in Wisconsin whose nickname is the "Indians".  The town was named after a Potowatomi  Indian chief who lived in the area, so it makes sense as part of the town's history.  The thing that really bothers me is that all the imagery all over the school depicts Native Americans in ornate, Sioux-type headdresses and/or on horses, and involving teepees and buffalo.  The Potawatomi did not wear headdresses, lived in semi-permanent wigwams and longhouses, did not hunt buffalo (at least, not as a primary food source, like the plains cultures) and did not widely adopt horses until well into the 1800s.  Of course, the headdress/horses/teepees imagery was made popular in novels and movies about the wild west, and quickly became the stand in imagery for all Native Americans, as if they were one ethnic group, instead of a hugely diverse group with different ways of life.

That is what bothers me the most about the argument that these nicknames and mascots honor Native Americans.  Most of the time, all of the imagery surrounding the team reflect some watered-down relic of a stereotype from 1880s dime novels.  That isn't paying homage to anything other than our culture's misconceptions about the diversity of Native American life. 

If the mascot, nickname and imagery around my old high school actually attempted to pay homage to the local tribes, I might be okay with it.  Same with the Redskins.

[ChicosBailBonds]

That's an interesting take on it.

You want to use our likeness and name? Pay us a licensing fee.

Not bad.

To complete this thought, everyone with Irish ancestry should also get paid by Notre Dame?  Any mascot that is male gendered, do all males get a licensing fee?  Do the Cowboys have to pay ranchers?  Do the Texas Rangers have to pay...well, the Texas Rangers law enforcement? 

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

To complete this thought, everyone with Irish ancestry should also get paid by Notre Dame?  Any mascot that is male gendered, do all males get a licensing fee?  Do the Cowboys have to pay ranchers?  Do the Texas Rangers have to pay...well, the Texas Rangers law enforcement? 

The Irish argument makes no sense. The Fighting Irish is the mascot of a school which has traditionally been an Irish serving institution. They already "own" the Irish imagery. The Utah Utes paying the Ute tribe makes sense because it is a bunch of white people paying for an image they don't already "own." Same thing for the male mascots. The university serves and is own and operated by men, so they already "own" the image of a male mascot. The Cowboys and Rangers are reducto ad absurdum.

I don't understand. You just said that the reason you are so passionate about keeping the Redskins name (and I assume other native american themed names) is because you are afraid the native american culture will disappear. Wouldn't requiring teams to help financially support the tribe they are borrowing from help your cause? I would have thought you would be for this.

[ChicosBailBonds]

The Irish argument makes no sense. The Fighting Irish is the mascot of a school which has traditionally been an Irish serving institution. They already "own" the Irish imagery. The Utah Utes paying the Ute tribe makes sense because it is a bunch of white people paying for an image they don't already "own." Same thing for the male mascots. The university serves and is own and operated by men, so they already "own" the image of a male mascot. The Cowboys and Rangers are reducto ad absurdum.

I don't understand. You just said that the reason you are so passionate about keeping the Redskins name (and I assume other native american themed names) is because you are afraid the native american culture will disappear. Wouldn't requiring teams to help financially support the tribe they are borrowing from help your cause? I would have thought you would be for this.

I said that is ONE of the reasons, not the only reason.

Since when does Notre Dame "own" the Irish imagery?  That's why I asked my question.  If we're going to require licensing fees to be paid out to use imagery, why can't Irish people demand a cut?  Or anything else for that matter?   

What you find absurd, many others won't.  Some of the same Native Americans wanting Redskins to go away also want Blackhawks, Braves, Indians, etc removed as well.  Some call that absurd, some of those folks don't.  Doesn't take much for a small group of people to be outraged.

Back to the question, if we're going to pay for usage, why wouldn't those folks have the same claim?  I have no doubt in my mind there are more than a bunch of lawyers that would try to walk that line.

[MU82]

New poll out today

71% say keep the name.


And another poll, this time of Washington Redskins players.   26 say keep the name, 1 said change it, 24 did not answer.  96% support among those that answered.



Still wondering where those updated polls are from Native Americans that are against the name?  Keep waiting. As my guy down at Turner said (they own CNN), they didn't like the initial polling they got (translation...it didn't fit the agenda) so you won't see anything for some time. 

Interesting that you should cite this 71% approval poll to further your case.

In the most recent national survey on the subject, 71% of all Americans polled say every woman should receive access to free (in other words, taxpayer-subsidized) contraception.

So given such incredibly strong support, it's nice to know that you must believe wholeheartedly that should be the law of the land.

[Lennys Tap]

 You just said that the reason you are so passionate about keeping the Redskins name (and I assume other native american themed names) is because you are afraid the native american culture will disappear.

The Native American culture will disappear if a pro football team stops using a racial slur as a nickname? Could be the dumbest thing ever said on Scoop.

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

To complete this thought, everyone with Irish ancestry should also get paid by Notre Dame?  Any mascot that is male gendered, do all males get a licensing fee?  Do the Cowboys have to pay ranchers?  Do the Texas Rangers have to pay...well, the Texas Rangers law enforcement? 

Righhhht, but the slippery slope works both ways.

I can't sell sweatshirts with a big blue star on them outside of JerryWorld without a licensing agreement.

Did Jerry invent the blue star? How about the word "Cowboys"? Clearly there were cowboys in Dallas before there were "The Cowboys". Why do I need a licensing agreement to sell stuff that says "Dallas Cowboys" on it?

Now, logistically, licensing Native American tribes/names is a HUGE logistical challenge, no doubt. It might not even be realistic, but I don't think it should just be dismissed out of hand. It's an interesting concept that never really occurred to me. 

If the Native American imagery is so important to a sports team (a private organization), they should be willing to pay a licensing fee. If the Tribes are really offended by it, then they can turn down the agreement.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

Now, logistically, licensing Native American tribes/names is a HUGE logistical challenge, no doubt. It might not even be realistic, but I don't think it should just be dismissed out of hand. It's an interesting concept that never really occurred to me. 

They aren't labeled as "licensing fees" but the University of Utah and Central Michigan both pay their respective tribes for the use of their name. Other schools may do the same thing. I have no idea how much or any of the details, but it can be done.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

The Native American culture will disappear if a pro football team stops using a racial slur as a nickname? Could be the dumbest thing ever said on Scoop.

I don't know how much good the Redskins do for native american culture. But having talked to members of the Ute nation, the ones I spoke to feel that they would have faded into obscurity without the exposure and funds provided by the universities nickname.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

I said that is ONE of the reasons, not the only reason.

But it's the only legitimate argument you've made so far. To simply attack those who want to change the mascot does nothing for the "pro-Redskin" side. You've listed countless argument about why you think the other side is stupid, illegitimate, and hypocritical. You've only made one argument for why your side is good. Calling the other side stupid doesn't make your side smart.

Since when does Notre Dame "own" the Irish imagery?  That's why I asked my question.  If we're going to require licensing fees to be paid out to use imagery, why can't Irish people demand a cut?  Or anything else for that matter?   

Back to the question, if we're going to pay for usage, why wouldn't those folks have the same claim?  I have no doubt in my mind there are more than a bunch of lawyers that would try to walk that line.

Because an Irish university can choose to call itself the Fighting Irish. Just like a native serving institution like UNC Pembroke can call itself the Indians. Or a historically black college could call themselves the blacks. I'm sure you could find many lawyers, I'm just as sure that those lawyers would lose.

What you find absurd, many others won't.  Some of the same Native Americans wanting Redskins to go away also want Blackhawks, Braves, Indians, etc removed as well.  Some call that absurd, some of those folks don't.  Doesn't take much for a small group of people to be outraged. 

Why does it have to be all or nothing? We all draw our own line in the sand at what we think is right. No one is talking about the government forcing the Redskins to change. We are normal every day Americans who find this mascot to be an issue and are voicing our opinions. Right now, the power of public opinion isn't strong enough to convince the Redskins leadership to change. In a few years, maybe it will be. And maybe next they will come for Blackhawks, Braves, Indians, etc. Same process will happen. When they get to teams like the Utes and Chippewas, I will throw my voice on the other side, because I think they do more good than harm.

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

What you find absurd, many others won't.  Some of the same Native Americans wanting Redskins to go away also want Blackhawks, Braves, Indians, etc removed as well.  Some call that absurd, some of those folks don't.  Doesn't take much for a small group of people to be outraged.

So what?

We don't need to take action or inaction out of fear of some sort of hypothetical slippery slope.

Black people don't like being called "boy" or "n-word". I don't think the world has stopped spinning because that's not acceptable vernacular anymore.

Not everything is some sort of slippery slope leading to the wussification and liberal take-over of America.

[brandx]

Since whites own most professional franchises -  let's start changing team names to Pale Faces, Crackers, Honkies, Gringos, Blue-eyed Devils, Milkies, Rednecks, Hillbillies, Trailer Trash, Caspers, Whiteys, Albinos, Klansmen, Lynchers, Slave Beaters, Cops, etc?

Isn't it time to honor whites and the white culture?

[MU82]

So what?

We don't need to take action or inaction out of fear of some sort of hypothetical slippery slope.

Black people don't like being called "boy" or "n-word". I don't think the world has stopped spinning because that's not acceptable vernacular anymore.

Not everything is some sort of slippery slope leading to the wussification and liberal take-over of America.

Exactly.

Remember when Casey Martin won the right to use a cart during tournament play. Everybody from Tiger to Jack to Arnold argued that it was a slippery slope and soon others would be demanding the right to use a cart.

Well, it's been something like 15 years since he won the right in court to use a cart. Has any other disabled golfer even sought permission to use a cart in a PGA event?

Everything isn't a slippery slope ... but it always sounds like a great argument for those who are afraid of even the slightest change.

You know what really WAS a slippery slope? Letting Jackie Robinson play Major League Baseball.

[GGGG]

Exactly.

Remember when Casey Martin won the right to use a cart during tournament play. Everybody from Tiger to Jack to Arnold argued that it was a slippery slope and soon others would be demanding the right to use a cart.

Well, it's been something like 15 years since he won the right in court to use a cart. Has any other disabled golfer even sought permission to use a cart in a PGA event?

Everything isn't a slippery slope ... but it always sounds like a great argument for those who are afraid of even the slightest change.

You know what really WAS a slippery slope? Letting Jackie Robinson play Major League Baseball.

Yep.  Doomsday arguments about social issues never come to pass.

We'll be saying the same thing about homosexual marriage in about a decade.  No one will be married to their dog like all the doomsayers predicted.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

Yep.  Doomsday arguments about social issues never come to pass.

We'll be saying the same thing about homosexual marriage in about a decade.  No one will be married to their dog like all the doomsayers predicted.

What about ducks?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EXPcBI4CJc8

[ChicosBailBonds]

So what?

We don't need to take action or inaction out of fear of some sort of hypothetical slippery slope.

Black people don't like being called "boy" or "n-word". I don't think the world has stopped spinning because that's not acceptable vernacular anymore.

Not everything is some sort of slippery slope leading to the wussification and liberal take-over of America.

So we should ignore the majority of Native Americans that are just fine with the name, believe it IS a place of honor for the minority of Native Americans that don't believe that.

Well, you believe one way and others do not.  I'm taking the view of Native Americans that don't want a bunch of guilt ridden white people to decide how they should think, especially when those same white people call them (indirectly or directly) stupid, dumb, uneducated, etc.   

To each their own.   

[Lennys Tap]

I don't know how much good the Redskins do for native american culture. But having talked to members of the Ute nation, the ones I spoke to feel that they would have faded into obscurity without the exposure and funds provided by the universities nickname.

Well, comparing a denied racial slur to the actual name of a tribe is really dumb also. Are you actually doing that?

[ChicosBailBonds]

The Native American culture will disappear if a pro football team stops using a racial slur as a nickname? Could be the dumbest thing ever said on Scoop.

Yup, there you go again....calling Native Americans dumb, stupid, ignorant.


Here's an article written by four Native Americans, that make the exact argument you just called dumb.  You're so WHITETIOUS in your condemnation...it's so sad to see you call these people stupid, but I am not surprised.

http://sayanythingblog.com/entry/washington-redskins/

"Taking the pride we have in our nicknames and logos is just another step towards that goal of not assimilation but genocide. Removing all references to something is the first step in removing it entirely."



Lenny....always always ready to tell non-whites how they should think and how stupid and dumb they are if they don't agree with his position.  How mighty white of you.  Well done!

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

Well, comparing a denied racial slur to the actual name of a tribe is really dumb also. Are you actually doing that?

No I'm not. But Chicos made the argument the native american themed mascosts help preserve native american culture. You are the one who narrowed it down to just Redskins. That's why I said it was oversimplified. Redskins doesn't in my opinion but Utes does despite them both falling under the category of native american themed mascots.

[Lennys Tap]

So we should ignore the majority of Native Americans that are just fine with the name, believe it IS a place of honor for the minority of Native Americans that don't believe that.

Well, you believe one way and others do not.  I'm taking the view of Native Americans that don't want a bunch of guilt ridden white people to decide how they should think, especially when those same white people call them (indirectly or directly) stupid, dumb, uneducated, etc.  

To each their own.  

Try to change the subject, obfuscate and muddy the waters, but it doesn't change this: at the end of the day, anyone who knows that the term "redskin" has a well earned definition as a racial slur doesn't need a poll to oppose it. A simple sense of right and wrong will do. And anyone who knows that well earned definition but still supports it's use can't hide behind polls either.

To each his own? Right.

[Lennys Tap]

No I'm not. But Chicos made the argument the native american themed mascosts help preserve native american culture. You are the one who narrowed it down to just Redskins. That's why I said it was oversimplified. Redskins doesn't in my opinion but Utes does despite them both falling under the category of native american themed mascots.

Exactly. Anyone who thinks using a racial slur for a nickname preserves Native American  culture is absurd.

[MU82]

Charlotte Observe joining those who will no longer refer to Washington's NFL team by its racist nickname.

---

Charlotte Observer sports editor Mike Persinger announced Saturday that the Observer will avoid using the name Redskins when referring to Washington, D.C.’s NFL football team. The editorial board doesn’t have much occasion to write about the Washington football team, but should the topic come up in the future, we also won’t use the name. It’s time.

For the Observer’s sports department, this is no small decision. Just a half-dozen other newspapers have adopted such a policy, and the Observer is the first in a city with a significant Washington fan base. Before the Carolina Panthers came along, this was “Redskins Country,” and those long-timers who remain loyal to the team are probably the most likely to consider the 81-year-old nickname a significant part of the franchise’s tradition.

For decades, however, Native Americans have expressed discomfort with the Washington nickname. Perhaps the Observer should have taken a stand sooner. But our slowness in getting here doesn’t change the fact that, for us and a growing number of people, it’s the right place.

To us, the test is simple: If you were to have a conversation with a Native American, would you use the word “Redskins” to describe his or her ethnicity – or in any other way? We wouldn’t. Because it’s a slur.

It doesn’t matter that it’s a word that might once have been acceptable. Words grow up. They grow obsolete. They grow into something that’s distasteful. Or we grow up enough to realize they’ve been distasteful all along.

It also doesn’t matter that there are some, perhaps many, Native Americans who don’t believe it’s a slur. It matters that many do.

Finally, let’s dispose of the what-about-other-names argument. Redskins is not like the college teams named Seminoles or the helicopter named Chinook. Those names honor tribes. They do not denigrate a people.

For all of those reasons, the Observer and this editorial board have made a choice about what it will no longer print. Why, some might ask, are we announcing it? We believe readers should know about significant decisions like this. In this space, we also hope the cumulative rejection of the slur will eventually convince Washington owner Daniel Snyder that this “tradition” has become costly.

We know others will make different choices. If readers want to use the team’s nickname in letters about the controversy, we’ll print them. But the Observer’s sports editors and writers feel that typing that name is no longer the right thing to do. We agree. It’s time. It’s long past time.

---

So how  about it, Chicos and others who like the nickname. If you were having a casual conversation with a Native American you don't know well, would you say:

"Has it been difficult being a Native American in today's United States?"

OR

"Has it been difficult being a redskin in today's United States?"

If the answer is not the latter - if you don't feel perfectly comfortable calling the person sitting across from you a redskin - than you probably are a hypocrite.

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

So we should ignore the majority of Native Americans that are just fine with the name, believe it IS a place of honor for the minority of Native Americans that don't believe that.

Well, you believe one way and others do not.  I'm taking the view of Native Americans that don't want a bunch of guilt ridden white people to decide how they should think, especially when those same white people call them (indirectly or directly) stupid, dumb, uneducated, etc.   

To each their own.   

For me personally, I'm not going to use the name anymore. I've just come to realize it's not appropriate.

For you, when there is an official Nielson survey Native Americans, and 51% say Redskins is not appropriate, you'll stop using the name.

Is that fair?

[ChicosBailBonds]

MU82, I find that example to be so ridiculous that it is laughable, but to each their own.


It's similar to the ridiculous example from the Chicago Sun Times a few weeks ago in which he was widely lampooned for it by using the dropped hat example.  The idea that you would say "hey Redskin, you dropped your hat".  Stupid.  You wouldn't say hey Irish guy, you dropped your hat either....or hey Down syndrome kid you dropped your hat.    You would say, "sir, you dropped your hat".

If you think people using the name are hypocrites, I'd ask you stop using 100's of names that someone somewhere is outraged by....but we all know that isn't going to happen either.  I'd ask that since some of the same Native Americans asking for the name to no longer be used also want the Blackhawks removed, then you're just being hypocritical if you support the Blackhawks....somewhere, someone is outraged.

And please, someone change the title of this thread before the smartest of the smart have their heads explode.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

If you think people using the name are hypocrites, I'd ask you stop using 100's of names that someone somewhere is outraged by....but we all know that isn't going to happen either.  I'd ask that since some of the same Native Americans asking for the name to no longer be used also want the Blackhawks removed, then you're just being hypocritical if you support the Blackhawks....somewhere, someone is outraged.

Again, for the 5th time. It's not all or nothing. It is fine to be outraged by Redskins and not be outraged by Blackhawks. I'm personally outraged by both but understand why others aren't. These things are on a spectrum and Redskins are further along on the outrage scale than the Blackhawks are. You address the worst first and move onto to the less blatant. And the Redskins are the worst on this scale, no question.