Washington Redskins change their name

[Let's Go Warriors]

No, I'm picking slurs as the only possible grounds for offense at nicknames.

So for race/ethnicity that would include Redskins, Micks, Dagos, Ni$$ers, etc.

For gender it would include Bitches or Whores.

For religion it would include Herring Chokers, Papists, Kikes, etc.

There are slurs for every national origin, color, race, sex, religion, etc. They are defined as such.

Irish, Devils, Demons, Cowboys, Packers, Panthers, Braves, etc. may offend the professionally offended like yourself, but most people will laugh at your thin skin and move on - they can tell the difference between a slur and a non slur, and if they can't they can look it up in the dictionary. You have a dictionary, don't you?

Im trying to find where in my post I said slur.  I didnt...

I said offensive.  Just because we dont consider something a slur does not mean its not offensive.  You choose to be "intelectually dishonest" and draw the line at "slurs"

I do not.  Many other people do not.  You assume alot "but most people will laugh at your thin skin and move on"  You literally have no idea that this is true.  You can not possibly have any information to back this claim up.


Was Warriors a slur?  No, it was not.  It was removed due to "imagery".  Im just asking for the same treatment for every group.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

Coach Ellenson,

You have every right to be offended. No one could ever tell you, nor should they ever tell you that you can't be offended. As Americans, hell, as human beings, we have the right to feel whatever way we want about anything.

The jump in logic that I'm seeing in your post is that you believe if Redskins must go, than every name ever that might possibly offend someone must go. If we believed that, than well, we couldn't have mascots. You could name your team the Chairs and someone would find offense with it.

Whether a mascot is offensive or not is not black and white. It is a scale. On one end, you have the very vanilla names like the Chairs. On the other end you have a mascot like the Redskins which by it's very definition is a racial slur of an ethnic minority. Every person has the right to pick where along the scale they "draw their line in the sand." That is to say, they chose at what point they start/stop being offended. This is a rough idea of what the scale looks like to most people

Most Offensive
Racial Slurs of Ethnic Minorities (Redskins)
Broad Terms about Ethnic Minorities (Indians/Braves/Blackhawks)
Specific Groups of Ethnic Minorities (Utes/Chippewas/Aztecs)
Religious Offenders (Demons/Devils/Saints*) *Atheists could be offended by religious names
Ethnic Majority Offenders (Fighting Irish)
Gender Offenders (Kings)
Profession Offenders (Cowboys)
Animal Rights Offenders (Take your pick)
Items (The Chairs)
Least Offensive

I think most people chose to draw their line pretty high on the scale. Is that right? I don't know, but it's the way it is. If you're curious, I draw my line somewhere between the Indians and the Utes.

Your offense to the Fighting Irish and Devils is a valid feeling, but no matter which way you slice it, Redskins is more offensive than either of those. People are going to focus on that first. Once Redskins change, than they will work on changing the Indians/Braves, etc. After they change those....I'm gonna switch sides and start fighting for the right of those schools to keep Utes/Devils/Fighting Irish, etc.

I'm sure you won't like that I just said that Redskins is more offensive than Fighting Irish. Let me pose something to you. You said in one of your early posts that in America "all men are created equal." That is a beautiful goal, it's also a crock of bs. White, straight, Christian, upper class men are born more free than minorities, gays, non-christians, lower class, and women. That is a fact. But because our country believes in equality, it needs to offer certain advantages and protections to those who are disenfranchised because of the identity they were born into. Even with those, we don't get close to equality, but it's a good start. One of those protections? Naming a team after a majority population is widely accepted as ok, naming one after a minority population is not.

Regarding your offense to the Fighting Irish and Devils. It is also important to keep in mind who did the naming. The reason I am offended by Indians/Redskins is because those teams are run by white men, their players are not American Indians, and most of their fans are white men. It is a group of white people taking on the imagery of an ethnic minority. Notre Dame is run by Irishmen, many of their players are Irishmen, and their fanbase contains a ton of Irishmen. As Irishmen, they decided to name their team the Fighting Irish. They are your and mine countrymen. Just like I believe Tribal Colleges such UNC-Pembroke should be allowed to call themselves the Indians (or even the Redskins), I believe an Irish serving institution such as Notre Dame should be allowed to call themselves the Fighting Irish. Same goes for Religious institutions like Depaul calling themselves the Blue Demons. As Christians, they decided to take on that religious moniker. I may agree with you on when public schools or teams take on the Devils as a nickname. I, as a Christian, am not offended by Devils. But if there are those who are, maybe it should be changed.

[Silkk the Shaka]

Just took a cruise through here after somewhat intentionally avoiding it for quite some time. I'd like to thank Lenny's Tap, Canned Goods 'n Ammo, and keefe for saving me a buttload of typing. That is all.

[CTWarrior]

...You said in one of your early posts that in America "all men are created equal." That is a beautiful goal, it's also a crock of bs. White, straight, Christian, upper class men are born more free than minorities, gays, non-christians, lower class, and women. That is a fact...

You were doing pretty good until this with your levels of outrage, though I have a little trouble discerning level 2 from level 3.  This is certainly not a fact.  Your advantages in this country are almost entirely financially based, so I'll buy upper class.  The other stuff is noise-level. 

I certainly don't see how atheists are less free than Christians, in fact they have at least an extra hour of free time on Sunday mornings...

[Lennys Tap]

You were doing pretty good until this with your levels of outrage, though I have a little trouble discerning level 2 from level 3.  This is certainly not a fact.  Your advantages in this country are almost entirely financially based, so I'll buy upper class.  The other stuff is noise-level. 

I certainly don't see how atheists are less free than Christians, in fact they have at least an extra hour of free time on Sunday mornings...

+1

[Benny B]

And the "fighting" part has to do with bravery of Irish troops at Gettysburg.

Yeah right.  Just like the "Redskins" name is a tribute to Native Americans, eh?

I'm pretty sure that those who fought at Gettysburg looked nothing like this:



The Redskins logo is a more accurate depiction of a Native American than the above is of an Irish person.  But we're supposed to tolerate the logo that's less representative because those being caricatured don't take offense to it?

Unless you're a Native American, you cannot take offense to the Redskins logo and not be equally offended by the Notre Dame logo.

And no... being 8% Cherokee on your mother's side doesn't make you a Native American.  If you're not recognized as a member by a tribal council, you're not a Native American.

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

Yeah right.  Just like the "Redskins" name is a tribute to Native Americans, eh?

I'm pretty sure that those who fought at Gettysburg looked nothing like this:



The Redskins logo is a more accurate depiction of a Native American than the above is of an Irish person.  But we're supposed to tolerate the logo that's less representative because those being caricatured don't take offense to it?

Unless you're a Native American, you cannot take offense to the Redskins logo and not be equally offended by the Notre Dame logo.

And no... being 8% Cherokee on your mother's side doesn't make you a Native American.  If you're not recognized as a member by a tribal council, you're not a Native American.

I don't think you're entirely wrong, but I don't think I'm okay keeping R-skins our of fear that they will change "fighting irish", and then they will change "Scarlett knights", etc.

I don't want to keep R-skins out of fear of some sort of mascot slippery slope.

Believing R-skins is offensive isn't the same as saying "EVERYTHING IS OFFENSIVE".

[brandx]

Yeah right.  Just like the "Redskins" name is a tribute to Native Americans, eh?

I'm pretty sure that those who fought at Gettysburg looked nothing like this:

The Redskins logo is a more accurate depiction of a Native American than the above is of an Irish person.  But we're supposed to tolerate the logo that's less representative because those being caricatured don't take offense to it?

Unless you're a Native American, you cannot take offense to the Redskins logo and not be equally offended by the Notre Dame logo.

And no... being 8% Cherokee on your mother's side doesn't make you a Native American.  If you're not recognized as a member by a tribal council, you're not a Native American.

http://michaelloynd.com/blog/?p=26

I could care less if you believe it or not. It is one of the legends, but there are others.

[Spotcheck Billy]

can we just refer to them as the "r-word" from now on?

[Benny B]

http://michaelloynd.com/blog/?p=26

I could care less if you believe it or not. It is one of the legends, but there are others.

Well, I couldn't care less, especially since it's only "one of the legends."

[MUDPT]

http://www.jsonline.com/sports/packers/packers-ceo-mark-murphy-talks-about-current-nfl-crisis-b99361761z1-277682141.html

That story led off Olbermann yesterday.  Good job by the Law School with news like this and their polling system (not sarcastic).

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

You were doing pretty good until this with your levels of outrage, though I have a little trouble discerning level 2 from level 3.

I didn't discern 2 from 3 at first. But I came to the conclusion that if a tribe gave permission, the school financially compensated the tribe, and the school kept their fans under control, using specific tribes as mascots could be beneficial for preserving and celebrating the tribe's culture. You can't meet those three requirements with broad terms like Indians or Braves.

You were doing pretty good until this with your levels of outrage.  This is certainly not a fact.  Your advantages in this country are almost entirely financially based, so I'll buy upper class.  The other stuff is noise-level. 

I certainly don't see how atheists are less free than Christians, in fact they have at least an extra hour of free time on Sunday mornings...

Much smarter people than you or I have researched this topic thoroughly. Upper class, white, straight, Christian males have privileges that minorities don't.

People of color are more likely to get harsher sentences for crimes committed and are subjected to racial profiling.

Gay men and women are unable to marry in several states and cannot hold hands in public without risk of ostracizing or even violence.

Atheists live in a country that mentions God in its pledge of allegiance and are considered social pariahs in many parts of the country.

Muslims are subjected to racism on a daily basis due to the war in Iraq and are kept from building places of worship in some parts of the country.

Men get paid more money than their female counterparts despite having the same jobs and same qualifications and women are often raised to believe their only role in life is to be a wife and mother and can be ostracized for seeking at a career.

I just gave two examples for each off the top of my head. I'm not sure how you can say the other stuff is "noise level," especially when one of the examples given is ability to marry. That seems like a fairly significant lack of freedom.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

The Redskins logo is a more accurate depiction of a Native American than the above is of an Irish person.  But we're supposed to tolerate the logo that's less representative because those being caricatured don't take offense to it?

Unless you're a Native American, you cannot take offense to the Redskins logo and not be equally offended by the Notre Dame logo.

Actually I can be. You are right that the Notre Dame logo is more of a caircature than the Redskins logo is. That's not the issue though. The Redskins logo was created by white men for a team of non-American Indians, with a mostly white fan base. The Fighting Irish logo was created by Irishmen, for a team with a lot of Irishmen on it, with a fanbase of mostly Irishmen.

Who does the naming matters. The Irishmen of Notre Dame have the right to display Irishmen in whatever way the please. If other Irishmen don't like, they need to take it up with their fellow Micks (I can say that, I'm Irish  ). But it is not an issue of discrimination or prejudice, because Irishmen can't discriminate against themselves. Well they can, but it's not racism. White men using the name Redskins, that is an issue of prejudice.

[MU82]

Atheists live in a country that mentions God in its pledge of allegiance and are considered social pariahs in many parts of the country.

I am a non-practicing Jew who hasn't believed in God for decades. My wife, who also is non-religious, forbids me from telling anybody that I am an atheist out of fear that we will be ostracized.

Many, many atheists are afraid to come out of the "holy closet." Just about nobody with political aspirations does because he/she would have little chance of getting elected in most parts of the country. Heck, gay folks have as much if not better chance of getting elected than atheists do.

Bill Maher and I disagree on many political things, but I am grateful that he is such an vocal atheist.

[real chili 83]

I didn't discern 2 from 3 at first. But I came to the conclusion that if a tribe gave permission, the school financially compensated the tribe, and the school kept their fans under control, using specific tribes as mascots could be beneficial for preserving and celebrating the tribe's culture. You can't meet those three requirements with broad terms like Indians or Braves.

Much smarter people than you or I have researched this topic thoroughly. Upper class, white, straight, Christian males have privileges that minorities don't.

People of color are more likely to get harsher sentences for crimes committed and are subjected to racial profiling.

Gay men and women are unable to marry in several states and cannot hold hands in public without risk of ostracizing or even violence.

Atheists live in a country that mentions God in its pledge of allegiance and are considered social pariahs in many parts of the country.

Muslims are subjected to racism on a daily basis due to the war in Iraq and are kept from building places of worship in some parts of the country.

Men get paid more money than their female counterparts despite having the same jobs and same qualifications and women are often raised to believe their only role in life is to be a wife and mother and can be ostracized for seeking at a career.

I just gave two examples for each off the top of my head. I'm not sure how you can say the other stuff is "noise level," especially when one of the examples given is ability to marry. That seems like a fairly significant lack of freedom.

You speak in absolutes, thus your comments are flawed.

Don't stereotype....both ways.

I know a Canadian Indian who wants to be referred to as a native...counter to Keefe's "point".

If you read the history of American Indian culture, you will learn that many tribes practiced the same brutal tactic towards other tribes that they lament about from European settlers.

Read how the Erie Indians were wiped out...to extinction by the Iriquois.

We should strive to be better.  All of us.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

You speak in absolutes, thus your comments are flawed.

I'm honestly confused. Where did I speak in absolutes? I qualified everything with "in many cases" or "in several states" or "in some parts of the country." The only absolutes I posted were honest to goodness facts. If you would like, I can get citations.

[SaintPaulWarrior]

The Fighting Irish logo was created by Irishmen, for a team with a lot of Irishmen on it, with a fanbase of mostly Irishmen.

Who does the naming matters. The Irishmen of Notre Dame have the right to display Irishmen in whatever way the please. If other Irishmen don't like, they need to take it up with their fellow Micks (I can say that, I'm Irish  Grin). But it is not an issue of discrimination or prejudice, because Irishmen can't discriminate against themselves. Well they can, but it's not racism. White men using the name Redskins, that is an issue of prejudice.

Show me your stats of all these Irishmen at ND.  As a person from Ireland I would have no problem with Notre Dame being called Notre Dame Irish.  I want the racist midget leprechaun gone.  I also want Fighting out of the name.  Notre Dame Irish with a normal size Irishman leading a St. Patrick's Day parade with an Adrian Peterson type of shillelagh being the mascot would be perfect.

I guess I wasn't that tired.  They were named after the 3rd President of the University who fought in the Irish Brigade in the Civil War at Gettysburg.  Notre Dame Irish Brigade.  No more midget leprechauns.  Racist that we are all midgets since they do not exist.  

On a side note I am 6'7'' and cannot grow a beard.  More racism.

By the way, here in MN they have Hot Dago sandwiches.  Italians are not up in arms.  Just ask Real Chili 83 JayBee and a couple of others.

[keefe]

I know a Canadian Indian who wants to be referred to as a native...counter to Keefe's "point".

My very first point was that there is no real consensus on much within Indian Country; hence my comparison with Asian consensus.

But the fact is that national American Indian advocacy, representative, and policy entities use the terms as I indicated. And sophisticated, articulate Indian leaders use Indian Country in the general, Tribes in particular, and the name of the tribe in the specific. I would suggest that one Canadian native does not a consensus make though he is most assuredly entitled to ask that he be referred to in whatever manner he wishes.

[muwarrior69]

I really find this extremely offensive, but many will defend their right to do this including me. Though I am offended I will not force them to change.

http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=4AF8124E-3048-5C12-006558D2C4DED716

[Benny B]

Actually I can be. You are right that the Notre Dame logo is more of a caircature than the Redskins logo is. That's not the issue though. The Redskins logo was created by white men for a team of non-American Indians, with a mostly white fan base. The Fighting Irish logo was created by Irishmen, for a team with a lot of Irishmen on it, with a fanbase of mostly Irishmen.

Who does the naming matters. The Irishmen of Notre Dame have the right to display Irishmen in whatever way the please. If other Irishmen don't like, they need to take it up with their fellow Micks (I can say that, I'm Irish  ). But it is not an issue of discrimination or prejudice, because Irishmen can't discriminate against themselves. Well they can, but it's not racism. White men using the name Redskins, that is an issue of prejudice.

Got it.  'Redskins' used by white men: bad.  'Redskins' used by any other race/gender combination that might be offended by 'redskins': acceptable.

[Aughnanure]

I really find this extremely offensive, but many will defend their right to do this including me. Though I am offended I will not force them to change.

http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=4AF8124E-3048-5C12-006558D2C4DED716

Poor white people.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

Got it.  'Redskins' used by white men: bad.  'Redskins' used by any other race/gender combination that might be offended by 'redskins': acceptable.

Almost. Redskins used by American Indians: acceptable. Redskins used by anyone else (be the man, woman, white, black, orange, gay, straight): unacceptable

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

Show me your stats of all these Irishmen at ND.

In order for a university to qualify as a "_______" serving institution, at least 18% of their student population most identify as that specific ethnicity. Notre Dame was labeled an Irish Serving institution back in the days when Irish was still considered a minority group. They no longer track this because Irishmen are now considered a majority group. I can't give you numbers, but I'd be willing to bet my life savings that at least 18% of Notre Dame students and fans are of Irish heritage.

As a person from Ireland I would have no problem with Notre Dame being called Notre Dame Irish.  I want the racist midget leprechaun gone.  I also want Fighting out of the name.  Notre Dame Irish with a normal size Irishman leading a St. Patrick's Day parade with an Adrian Peterson type of shillelagh being the mascot would be perfect.

I guess I wasn't that tired.  They were named after the 3rd President of the University who fought in the Irish Brigade in the Civil War at Gettysburg.  Notre Dame Irish Brigade.  No more midget leprechauns.  Racist that we are all midgets since they do not exist. 

On a side note I am 6'7'' and cannot grow a beard.  More racism.

You have every right to be offended. Take it up with our fellow Irishmen at Notre Dame. But let me pose a question to you, are you really offended by the Fighting Irish? Or are using this as a reason to justify keeping Redskins? Because if you truly are opposed to the Fighting Irish, then you should be appalled by the Redskins.

By the way, here in MN they have Hot Dago sandwiches.  Italians are not up in arms.  Just ask Real Chili 83 JayBee and a couple of others.

Again, just because one group is okay being discriminated against (which your observation that "Italians aren't up in arms" is not necessarily proof of), doesn't justify discriminating against another group. Also, I'm less worried about one city that has a discriminatory sandwich, than a professional sports team with a racist nickname that has national exposure. Next, I'm not as bothered by racism against a Caucasian ethnicity, they are a privileged class. They don't need the same level of support as disenfranchised ethnicity such as American Indians do. Finally, is the place selling the Hot Dago sandwich Italian? If they are, it is not an act of racism. Italians can call themselves Dagos all they want. My girlfriend is a Long Island Italian and refers to her family as "Fing Dagos" all the time.

[MU82]

Almost. Redskins used by American Indians: acceptable. Redskins used by anyone else (be the man, woman, white, black, orange, gay, straight): unacceptable

It's really quite simple.

As a person of Jewish descent, I feel I have carte blanche to make Jewish jokes, swear in Yiddish, call fellow Jews members of "the Tribe," even use words like "kike" when messing around. But I wouldn't take the same liberties when talking about Christians or Muslims, nor would I expect Christians and Muslims to make fun of Jews.

I mean, think about the way many blacks - especially those in pop culture - use the n-word when talking to each other ... but they sure as hell don't want those of us who aren't black using that word.

So yes, to many Indians, there is quite a difference between an Indian using "redskin" and you or I using it.

I don't know why this is so difficult to comprehend.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

I don't know why this is so difficult to comprehend.

In my experience, it is a combination of two reasons.

1) People get tunnel vision on the idea of equality. It has to be ok for everyone, otherwise it's not ok. If I can't do it, no one can.

2) People get defensive because they make those jokes. They use those words. And if they admit the above rule...that means that they have committed racist acts. As a Christian, I will admit to telling jokes about Jewish stereotypes. It's not right, it's racist. I recognize that I have committed a racist act and try to develop from there. Most people, especially people in privileged groups, are terrified of being called racist. Rather than accept that they may have done or said something racist, they get defensive, and try to blame the minority group or justify what they said. We are all human, we all have racist tendencies. It takes courage to own that. It is easier to blindly defend and claim that they don't exist.