Washington Redskins change their name

[ChicosBailBonds]

That said, history will judge you as dead wrong on this issue.

I love this.  History will be the judge....you do realize that history is what people want to make of it.  Go study the American Revolution in the UK, it is a lot different history than what we were taught about the same subject here in the States.  History changes all the time, on the very same subject, depending on who is writing it and often what the agenda is behind it.  I say that as a History major (one of three at MU).  History is written by the victors, not necessarily by those telling an accurate account of things.  Now, before Lenny or others go half cocked, that isn't some conspiracy theory I'm throwing out there.  History is always anchored in truths, the question comes down to the point of view of those truths.  It isn't 2 + 2 = 4 or Newton's laws, it is much different than that.

As far as the what that judgment will be, where does that end?  Out here we have a push by transgender students to be able to play sports for either (or both) of the boys and girls high school teams.  Depending on what side of the issue you are on, you may view things totally different.  Is the "right thing to do" to let a born male that wants to become a woman play on the girls teams, even though he is still a male?  Is that the right thing to do?  Is that what history will be judging?  What about the girls that don't want a male on their team?  What about the Native Americans that find Redskins as term of honor?  What about the Native Americans that fear the continued removal of Native American terms pulls the rest of society that much further away from their existence entirely?

So you can pontificate all you want about history and who will be judging it, etc.  It's an opinion, nothing more.

[ChicosBailBonds]

I think the same people who came up with Chief Wahoo, Chief Knockahoma and Willie Wampum.

To suggest there is anything resembling a consensus within Indian Country would be to say there is a consensus among Asian states. All I know is that in all correspondence and formal documents the Indian organizations and tribes use the terms Indian Country and Tribes/Tribal. I have gotten to know the Presidentially-appointed director of a national health related entity, a Lakota Sioux who has an MD and MPH from Harvard,  and she stated plainly that "Native American" is meaningless to Indians and is yet another convention concocted by Caucasians to attempt to categorize or explain Indians.

In any event, these people are grossly underserved and under-researched and are easily the most underrepresented group in the United States. White people have inflicted grievous harm on them and the continued use of offensive imagery is despicable. If our only recognition of them as human beings is through the use of grossly distorted caricatures, simplistic renderings of their beliefs and practices, and naïve petulance over objections to our own ignorance then we only further the contempt we have for them as human beings. Anyone educated in the Jesuit tradition should understand this. 

We agree, which is why if anyone bothered to spend a total of 8 minutes of their lives watching some of the videos I posted, those Native Americans would agree with this...I sense that those against the name spent exactly 0.0 seconds watching them.  As those men and women stated, we have much much much bigger issues than a nickname of a football team.  Of course, these same men and women also state that this is one of the reasons why they want to KEEP THE NAME, because their people have been under served and left behind, it is one area where they believe the general populace knows they exist.

The irony isn't lost on me.

[4everwarriors]

To say nothin' of the implied hops, which is another thin' Brown can do for you, aina?

[ChicosBailBonds]

What I think it is, is that people want to pick and choose what they think is offensive based on their own opinions.   Heck we had a person on this board rank "what most people find offensive" 
And that just because a group is not considered a minority they should not be offended.  They also understand that if the standards that they want to pick and choose for Nicknames etc were universally applied it would weaken their case.  In other words, they want to just pick and choose the names they dont like, in fear of the fact it is unlikely they would get their way if they were forced to apply this stuff across the board.  Look, I am not saying we should not do away with Redskins, but what I am saying is that we need to complete the job everywhere.  Not just for Indians.  It seems to me we are just committing 2 wrongs in an attempt to make right.

Anyway, I am done with this topic because nobody has convinced me otherwise on the strength of removing the Redskins argument one bit, while ignoring the fact that other Mascots and Nicknames that have offensive Imagery need to be removed as well.  In fact, most of those arguments have bolstered my opinion to the contrary. 

I can say I do respect your opinions and that I Love each and every one of you for being Marquette fans!  Go Warriors!, or Marquette if you must :-)

Amen....and what really throws them for a curveball is when you have a bunch of people in the supposed "offended" group that are fine with the name.  They're then either stupid, uninformed, or ignorant, but the good news is we have some intellectually superior folks that will think for them...set them straight.  It's awesome.

[ChicosBailBonds]

How do you know they aren't offended by the slur? Maybe they are and won't speak up for fear of being ostracized. And in this, case many of them are offended!

And yes, I am outraged by the Redskins mascot. Because it is a case of a privileged group using a slur for minority group as a mascot.

And no, I am not outraged by the Fighting Irish. Because it is a case of a privileged group using potentially offensive imagery for that same privileged group as a mascot.

BECAUSE MANY SAY SO.  BECAUSE MANY SAY IT ISN'T A SLUR.  BECAUSE MANY SAY IT IS A TERM OF HONOR.

YIKES!!!!


Just because SOME say it is a slur, doesn't mean all, or the majority or even a huge minority.  That is the entire point!!

[Lennys Tap]

People can SAY whatever they want. They can SAY 2+2 = 5. They can SAY words don't mean what they do mean. Free country. There is no law against being factually, verifiably, unequivocally wrong. Until the definition of the word changes, that's what you are. Arguing for 10,000 pages won't change that.

[ChicosBailBonds]

People can SAY whatever they want. They can SAY 2+2 = 5. They can SAY words don't mean what they do mean. Free country. There is no law against being factually, verifiably, unequivocally wrong. Until the definition of the word changes, that's what you are. Arguing for 10,000 pages won't change that.

This is very true, but when someone says 2 + 2 = 5, everyone knows they are wrong.   When someone else says Native Americans find the terms Redskins is a slur, that is not true.  Some do, many don't.  To go further, when the very same people say that Redskins is a slur and then follow it up and say there is no honor in the name, they come out looking really stupid when written, audio, and video evidence of Native Americans saying there is honor in the name.


Meanwhile....1967.....Redskins.....interesting.  Anyone figure it out yet?  Dictionary help.

[keefe]

This is very true, but when someone says 2 + 2 = 5, everyone knows they are wrong.   When someone else says Native Americans find the terms Redskins is a slur, that is not true.  Some do, many don't.  To go further, when the very same people say that Redskins is a slur and then follow it up and say there is no honor in the name, they come out looking really stupid when written, audio, and video evidence of Native Americans saying there is honor in the name.


Meanwhile....1967.....Redskins.....interesting.  Anyone figure it out yet?  Dictionary help.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/judges-rule-for-dictionary-over-redskins-feeble-attempts-to-defend-team-name/2014/06/18/9b29765e-f72f-11e3-a606-946fd632f9f1_story.html

[Lennys Tap]

This is very true, but when someone says 2 + 2 = 5, everyone knows they are wrong.   When someone else says Native Americans find the terms Redskins is a slur, that is not true.  Some do, many don't.  To go further, when the very same people say that Redskins is a slur and then follow it up and say there is no honor in the name, they come out looking really stupid when written, audio, and video evidence of Native Americans saying there is honor in the name.

l

Again, people can SAY whatever. They can SAY, for example, that Braves or Warriors is a slur but they're demonstrably wrong. Or they can SAY Redskin isn't one and be demonstrably wrong also. Easy if you stick to the salient fact - what a word actually means. I'm sorry the word's definition isn't what you want it to be but it is what it is. That's reality. That's the fact. It's a slur. Period. SAYING or FEELING it isn't won't change that.

[keefe]

We agree, which is why if anyone bothered to spend a total of 8 minutes of their lives watching some of the videos I posted, those Native Americans would agree with this...I sense that those against the name spent exactly 0.0 seconds watching them.  As those men and women stated, we have much much much bigger issues than a nickname of a football team.  Of course, these same men and women also state that this is one of the reasons why they want to KEEP THE NAME, because their people have been under served and left behind, it is one area where they believe the general populace knows they exist.

The irony isn't lost on me.

Well, I am working with American Indians who are opinion and thought leaders at the tribal and national levels and they are offended by the entire Redskins taxonomy and imagery. It is nothing more than an irritant to them because in the grand scheme of things it is trivial when compared with the real issues crushing their people. But make no mistake: these thoughtful, intelligent, sophisticated men and women see the whole Redskins narrative as a continuation of 500 years of marginalization.

 

[ChicosBailBonds]

Well, I am working with American Indians who are opinion and thought leaders at the tribal and national levels and they are offended by the entire Redskins taxonomy and imagery. It is nothing more than an irritant to them because in the grand scheme of things it is trivial when compared with the real issues crushing their people. But make no mistake: these thoughtful, intelligent, sophisticated men and women see the whole Redskins narrative as a continuation of 500 years of marginalization.

 

I have no doubt that some do, but just as I mentioned the AMA example....tribal leaders and certainly associations don't speak for everyone, including their own people.  Just as leaders of my country don't speak for all of us either when it comes to matters of opinion. 

1967.....an interesting year for the term Redskins.....interesting indeed.

[muwarrior69]

This is very true, but when someone says 2 + 2 = 5, everyone knows they are wrong.   When someone else says Native Americans find the terms Redskins is a slur, that is not true.  Some do, many don't.  To go further, when the very same people say that Redskins is a slur and then follow it up and say there is no honor in the name, they come out looking really stupid when written, audio, and video evidence of Native Americans saying there is honor in the name.


Meanwhile....1967.....Redskins.....interesting.  Anyone figure it out yet?  Dictionary help.

Here is the dissenting judges take.
http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-Sports/2014/06/18/Trademark-Dissent-Blasts-Non-Native-American-Experts-Claiming-Redskins-Disparaging

[ChicosBailBonds]

Here is the dissenting judges take.
http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-Sports/2014/06/18/Trademark-Dissent-Blasts-Non-Native-American-Experts-Claiming-Redskins-Disparaging

Brandx's head is going to explode because of the source....of course the important thing to note is NOT ONE MEDIA outlet presented the other point of view except this one, which is about as surprising as water being wet.

Part of my 1967 question is in this story, though they label it as 1966....Huff Post said 1967....close enough.  For a word that supposedly is a slur and has been since day one (according to so many "experts") it is strange that it wasn't until 1967 (or '66) that a dictionary ever published that as a definition.  Weird.  Odd.

The next dictionary to do so was 1981.  Yet the Redskins have had this name for their football team since the 1930's. 

Interesting.

[Lennys Tap]

Brandx's head is going to explode because of the source....of course the important thing to note is NOT ONE MEDIA outlet presented the other point of view except this one, which is about as surprising as water being wet.

Part of my 1967 question is in this story, though they label it as 1966....Huff Post said 1967....close enough.  For a word that supposedly is a slur and has been since day one (according to so many "experts") it is strange that it wasn't until 1967 (or '66) that a dictionary ever published that as a definition.  Weird.  Odd.

The next dictionary to do so was 1981.  Yet the Redskins have had this name for their football team since the 1930's. 

Interesting.

Pekin High School in Pekin Illinois (because of the similarity in name to Peking, China) adopted as a nickname "Chinks" in the 1930s. Their mascots were a male and female student dressed in traditional Chinese attire. By 1980 the wacky left wing farming community in central Illinois changed the nickname to the Dragons. If only they had remained steadfast in continuing to honor Chinese Americans, Chinks and non Chinks alike would be the better for it. LOL. Your defense of Redskins is no less despicable or racist than a defense of the "Chinks" would be. C'mon man - you're better than that.

[GGGG]

Brandx's head is going to explode because of the source....of course the important thing to note is NOT ONE MEDIA outlet presented the other point of view except this one, which is about as surprising as water being wet.

Part of my 1967 question is in this story, though they label it as 1966....Huff Post said 1967....close enough.  For a word that supposedly is a slur and has been since day one (according to so many "experts") it is strange that it wasn't until 1967 (or '66) that a dictionary ever published that as a definition.  Weird.  Odd.

The next dictionary to do so was 1981.  Yet the Redskins have had this name for their football team since the 1930's. 

Interesting.

Who cares?  The meaning of words change over time.  "Gay" for example.  "Negro" was once considered an acceptable term.  Now it isn't.

By your own posting, you just showed that "Redskin" has been considered a slur for almost 50 years. 

[real chili 83]

Pekin High School in Pekin Illinois (because of the similarity in name to Peking, China) adopted as a nickname "Chinks" in the 1930s. Their mascots were a male and female student dressed in traditional Chinese attire. By 1980 the wacky left wing farming community in central Illinois changed the nickname to the Dragons. If only they had remained steadfast in continuing to honor Chinese Americans, Chinks and non Chinks alike would be the better for it. LOL. Your defense of Redskins is no less despicable or racist than a defense of the "Chinks" would be. C'mon man - you're better than that.

Whoa, you forgot a critical fact, buster.

The Freport Pretzels too are under attack.  Many claim their roots are based racism. As a result, many grain based snack foods are feeling second class.  The privileged, potato based snack foods look the other way.

The horror, the horror.

[ChicosBailBonds]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/judges-rule-for-dictionary-over-redskins-feeble-attempts-to-defend-team-name/2014/06/18/9b29765e-f72f-11e3-a606-946fd632f9f1_story.html

You're missing the point.  They have had the name since the 1930's, the Smithsonian's lead linguist has stated numerous times the origins of the word are not in any way, shape or form a slur, racist, etc.  It wasn't until the late 1960's that one dictionary decided to add that definition.  Then, 15 years later another one did.

It blows a hole the size of a truck into the argument that the name was chosen for racist reasons....what team does that anyway?  NONE. 

That's ok, the other side will keep shifting the argument and moving the goal posts, it's how it works. 

[Lennys Tap]

It blows a hole the size of a truck into the argument that the name was chosen for racist reasons....what team does that anyway?  NONE.  

That's ok, the other side will keep shifting the argument and moving the goal posts, it's how it works.  

Has anyone here suggested that the name was CHOSEN for racist reasons? Does it matter? I'm sure that Pekin didn't choose "Chinks" for a racist reason back in the 1930s either. It's still wrong in 2014.

And for the record, you're the one moving the goal posts. Again. Five words: Redskin IS a racial slur. Doesn't matter what the good people in Washington (or Pekin - remember the Chinks) were thinking in the 1930s. Today, right now, at this moment, Redskin is a racial slur. That is a fact that is undisputable. Arguing that it wasn't in 1930, 1966, or 1983 is immaterial. Arguing whether Daniel Snyder has the right to call them that (he most certainly does) is immaterial. Everything is immaterial except this:

Question: How do you feel about using racial slurs as nicknames for our sport's teams?

1. I favor it.
2. I oppose it.
3. I don't care.

Simple, no?

[keefe]

You're missing the point.  They have had the name since the 1930's, the Smithsonian's lead linguist has stated numerous times the origins of the word are not in any way, shape or form a slur, racist, etc.  It wasn't until the late 1960's that one dictionary decided to add that definition.  Then, 15 years later another one did.

It blows a hole the size of a truck into the argument that the name was chosen for racist reasons....what team does that anyway?  NONE.  

That's ok, the other side will keep shifting the argument and moving the goal posts, it's how it works.  

Zeitgeist does not excuse effect. I am certain the US Federal Government and Life Magazine would regret publishing today what they did in the 1940's:

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

The evolution of language and culture isn't some sort of evil liberal agenda.

It's been going on forever:

The Simpsons used to be considered cutting edge, or even offensive. George Bush famously remarked about it.

Today, no President would backhand the Simpsons.

In 1930's, it was okay to use certain words and language.

Today, it's not really acceptable.

I don't think this is that complicated.

[Lennys Tap]

Zeitgeist does not excuse effect. I am certain the US Federal Government and Life Magazine would regret publishing today what they did in the 1940's:

Careful, Crash - don't tread on Chico's "Good Old Days".

[GGGG]

http://deadspin.com/is-the-redskins-vip-indian-defender-a-fake-indian-1642991295?utm_campaign=socialflow_deadspin_twitter&utm_source=deadspin_twitter&utm_medium=socialflow

[Pakuni]

You're missing the point.  They have had the name since the 1930's, the Smithsonian's lead linguist has stated numerous times the origins of the word are not in any way, shape or form a slur, racist, etc.  It wasn't until the late 1960's that one dictionary decided to add that definition.  Then, 15 years later another one did.

It blows a hole the size of a truck into the argument that the name was chosen for racist reasons....what team does that anyway?  NONE. 

That's ok, the other side will keep shifting the argument and moving the goal posts, it's how it works. 

Chico's .... whether the word originally was intended as a slur, or why the name was chosen, is pretty much irrelevant. There are many modern day slurs with innocent origins. That makes their use no more acceptable.

A simple test ... would you approach a Native American and refer to him/her as "redskin?"

A simple

[ChicosBailBonds]

Zeitgeist does not excuse effect. I am certain the US Federal Government and Life Magazine would regret publishing today what they did in the 1940's:

I'm sure they would, and universally that would be the accepted reaction.  I'm sure they have tobacco ads they used to run.  I'm sure they have articles in the 1970's about how the earth is going to cool and global ice age is coming they wish they never ran.  I'm sure they ran pieces about Betty homemaker that probably makes their skin crawl.  

Again, most Native Americans don't feel this way about the name Redskins. Fundamentally I do not understand why so many people fail to process the difference.  It is not a slur if you do not feel slurred against.  The origins of the word were not suspect, despite every push from the left to make that history up.  The dictionary didn't qualify the word in this fashion until the late 1960's and only one dictionary at that....took almost 15 years later for the second one to do so.  The name was in place since the 1930's put in by a Native American coach who we're now told by some people that he wasn't Native American (even though he convinced a 100% Native American school to admit him and stay their his whole student career..he must have been one hell of an illusionist to not be Native American but convince a school for Native Americans, run by Native Americans and created by Native Americans that he was a Native American....a regular David Copperfield).  The revisionist history has been fun to watch.

In the meantime, I came into the lobby today, Rich Eisen was doing his show (the set is based in our lobby where he does his live show) and there was Redskins stuff all over the place.  It was rather fun....I enjoyed it.  It's a team nickname, a nickname in which most Native Americans don't have an issue with it.  It's a private matter.  Don't like it, don't buy tickets, don't buy merchandise, don't watch on tv (they are dreadful team, so that's not hard to do).   I'm good with that.   If it is so abhorrent, so universally loathed, the name will be dropped for economic reasons, because people will not feel proud to wear the gear, go to the games, etc....especially those that are Native Americans that do so now, or get a Redskins tatoo, etc, etc. 

To each their own.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Chico's .... whether the word originally was intended as a slur, or why the name was chosen, is pretty much irrelevant. There are many modern day slurs with innocent origins. That makes their use no more acceptable.

A simple test ... would you approach a Native American and refer to him/her as "redskin?"

A simple

Lamest test I've seen and it's been tried many times here and destroyed here many times.  Do you approach an Irish person and say "hey Irish guy"?  No.  Do you go up to a woman and say "hey female"?  NO.  It's just completely stupid analogy, sorry...but just ridiculous on all levels.   You would say "excuse me, sir" or "excuse me, maam".  Same as you would address anyone else.  No one addresses anyone by any other means.  I'm not going up to some guy and say "hey American"...."hey Chinese American"...."hey Polish American"....it's just absurd and I don't know why people (the left especially) come up with this lame "test". It's not simple, it's simply dumb.

As a follow-up, I've also asked the question...if I'm at any number of Native American schools in this country that have Redskins as their nickname and I cheer "Go Redskins" while I'm in the stands and we're cheering on the football team....am I alienating everyone in the stands that is a Native American?  I mean, I must because it could be construed as "referencing" them as Redskins.  I suspect not, especially when everyone else is cheering on the team, which is the whole point...it's a TEAM NICKNAME.