http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/11102096/us-patent-office-cancels-washington-redskins-trademark
Long story short... The US Patent Office found the name Washington Redskins to be disparaging to Native Americans in a 2-1 vote, and as such, the trademark needed to be voided and canceled. This is effective immediately.
Now, the franchise does have the ability to appeal the decision, but for the time being, this means that the team no longer has control of their own name. There will no longer be such a thing as counterfeit merchandise for the Redskins. Even worse, even if the team does decide to change their name, if the patent cancellation holds, they will not have any right to any merchandise sold under the Washington Redskins name. Its essentially a death blow to the name, because the franchise will not be able to financially be viable if they have no trademark protection.
Comments
As I see it, if Snyder wants to retain control of the merchandising rights, he has three alternatives.
1. Move the team and change the name. This is the ultimate way to poke a stick in the government's eye.
2.Capitulate to the pressure and change the nickname.
3. Rub salt into everyone's wounds by changing the mascot to a redskin potato, and keep the nickname. A ton of new marketing opportunities, and who can be offended at a spud?
Love it. The new team could officially be called the Washington New Potatoes, yet fans endearingly know them as the Redskins. Hell to the F*cking Yes.
I did partake in a weeklong potato boycott after the Boise State opener...
All joking aside, they aren't messing around with this, are they?
This happened a few years back in 2003. they appealed and got the decision overturned. Probably will get this overturned as well.
Probably not a big deal. But then again...we're really PC looney nowadays.
Oh no, somehow I think this time the decision sticks. I wonder what the new name is gonna be...
You could be right, but deep pockets always help. Dan's pockets are pretty bleeping deep.
True. Deep pockets make DEEP IMPACTS, but I think this ones gonna hold up.
The reports I read earlier said that the decision wouldn't take effect if Snyder appealed, until the decision was reached on the appeal.
That is correct, and you know his lawyers have probably already filed the appeal.
Yeah but what if the folks at the Patent Office tells Snyder and the lawyers to "eff off"?
If I'm not mistaken, the last decision was issued in 1999 and the appeal was finally decided in 2003. Thus, four years of stalling accomplished. It's not the Patent Office who decides the appeal.
Washington Warriors? I personally like Washington Warthogs, but understand if people object to having "wart" in the team-name. As long as we avoid something stupid like Wizards, I'm happy.
Maybe this
Washington Winterfells?
So you're getting both the warts and the wizards? That's like the worst of both worlds...
You're also getting that hog. All seriousness I kid.
I know. I got it :)
I'm thinking the Washington Dire Wolves
I was thinking Werewolves might be badass too.
i would instantly become a fan if they went with washington direwolves.
Woah now, don't hate on the Wizards, that name is the shit.
Bullets >> Wizards. Just so much cooler.
Bullets are fast, lethal and accurate. Wizards are old, arthritic, and their sleeves are nicknames for droopy vaginas.
But thanks to the world of wizards, we have this
I think you mean this
This will always get an upvote from me!
Expecto upvotum.
Ok, fair enough. But when you think of the word "wizard" do you think of that, or this:
And do you really want either to be the face of your basketball team? We just picked it because it was non-confrontational and alliterative.
I think of that.
And it didn't remind wealthy businessmen of gang violence, like the old nickname. The old nickname? I thought of - 'Nobody bothered to think how horizontal red/white/blue would look on Wes Unseld...'
Exactly. That's what I meant by "nonconfrontational" - it doesn't bother anybody. But it's totally uncool/not menacing either. I understand why the bullets name needed to change, I'm just saying The Wizards was a bad choice.
Oh, it is absolutely uncool. It's about as sad as seeing Michael Jordan wearing the uni. I think they could and should have done a little better. The Bullets were a good franchise, even if they didn't exactly dominate. Wes, Elvin, The Pearl, Phil Chenier...
Wizard power!
And wasn't it the Bullets that won an NBA Finals? Where's the wizards nba finals?
Saw an accompanying article where Senator Harry Reid has proclaimed that he will not attend any more games until the name is changed.
#Heresaquartercallsomeonewhocares
I'll probably get downlegs for this but I imagine this is the government's reaction
As a Redskins fan, here's my reaction:
I don't really care. I'm still a fan of the team. The name didn't affect me personally and honestly I didn't see much of a reason to change it, but at the same point even if they change the name I'm still going to root for the team. End of story.
Exactly. And if a name change will end this issue, then fine. I have no problem as long as you don't make it something stupid. And if it does become something stupid, I'll probably get behind it anyway, because the name really isn't that important.
DC City Counsel proposed Redtails as the new name, as in the Redtail Hawk.
Could also keep the R with the feathers logo...
Oh good. Another team with a bird mascot. That's exactly what we need.
The Redtails has a lot of negative trash talk potential.
Friendly example: Their tails are red cuz they just got spanked!
Not so friendly example: Their tails are red cuz they just took it up the @$$!
Isn't that disrespectful to birds of prey?
Whoa, damn nature! You scary!
It looks like a depressed Furby.
#HTT_
I got the best name: Washington Hokies
I can totally deal with this name.
I'm not sure I want our great name affiliated with the team formerly known as Redskins. Hey! There you go, a new name.
Brilliant, You've come up with the perfect solution! Rename them "The Professional Football Team Formerly Known as the Redskins" and adjust the logo as shown below.
They were already looking to sign The Player Formerly Known As Mousecop anyway, it'll be an easy transition for the franchise.
Snyder should move the team to Canada.
The Montreal Redskins just sounds silly.
You're right. Toronto Redskins sounds more accurate.
That's actually what I was thinking. While I like the city of Montreal, it seems to French for football.
I thought of Toronto initially, too. Then I remembered that they'll soon have their own team anyway - the Toronto Bon Jovis. So I went with Montreal. I liked the old CFL days where you had two teams with the same nicknames, essentially - the Rough Riders and the Roughriders.
Kinda like how the SEC has the Tigers, Tigers, and Tigers?
Ha! I forgot about that.
But one of those tigers is sort of an eagle...
I don't think that would work. Rob Ford would say it's a good idea and everyone will probably oppose it.
Toronto is just waiting for the Bills to eventually make the jump. They already play games there.
What about the Washington: Average Joes, Purple Heads.../s
As a huge Redskins fan, I don't like this. I'm down for changing the name the second that every high school in America is no longer named the Redskins either.
I think the potato idea is funny, but no thanks.
I agree, the team name is not the best for racial reasons. But I can't get over the idea that the team I've loved for 32 years is going to be called something else. I don't want to see that happen.
I'd go as far as to argue this point: Ask a kid what a redskin is. They probably wouldn't say a native american. They'd probably say the football team in Washington. Because of this, I think the name has been redefined in the eyes of most of the people in the country to mean a football team, not a native american. I think forcing the Redskins to change their name gives the word a negative connotation and a power that it no longer has, for the sake of righting a genuine historical injustice that can't be assuaged by changing a team name.
I'm reminded of this South Park episode:
I feel the same way Horse. I have been watching them with my Dad for 32 yrs now.
It just won't be or feel the same I don't believe.
Wonder if any Baltimore Colts fans cheer for the Ravens? No, guess it just wouldn't be the same. And if it isn't exactly the same as it was in the 40's-70's, then it is unbearable. I guess that is why the Ravens nickname has never been accepted in Balmer. No fan gear or anything...
The Colts and Ravens aren't even the same franchise.
I see what you're doing here, but...
They were/are the NFL franchise for Baltimore. We all know they're different franchises, but that is moot. If you were a Baltimore fan, you are a Baltimore fan. Sure, it took a year or two or three, but you came around and love the Ravens, just as you loved the Colts. You still miss the Colts, and you still have your Johnny U. photo on your desk, but you love the Ravens now. Time moves on...
You'd be surprised. I know Baltimoreans younger than me (I was born in '83) that still hate the Colts because of how they left the city. Not like they were around to see it or would even remember it, though...
I'll have to ask them (as well as the older folks) who they rooted for during those 12 years between the Colts leaving and the Browns moving in and changing the name.
They should hate Robert Irsay, not the Colts. He was the one who called Mayflower. Of the other jilted Colts fans that I know, we all sort of mourned until we got a new team. Not many at all let their fanship go towards Indy.
Incidentally, I know quite a few who are Steelers fans.
But they are too busy hating Peter Angelos to pay Irsay any mind.
Angelos deserves it, IMO. It's one thing to want to make a profitable business from one's sports franchise, I've zero beef with that. It's another to bleed the customer & business for every penny. Angelos takes it too far. Baltimore fans are crazy loyal, and he plays on that too deeply to profit
Angelos and the owners of the Nats are bad.
Down here in Raleigh, our closest franchise is 4 hours away, and we do not have local broadcasts for any team. Not a single one. Does that stop the O's and Nats from blacking out all their games in our region on MLB At Bat because they fought tooth and nail to 'claim' us? Of course not.
Actually that's all Angelos. He controls the TV rights to both the Os and Nats. It's actually a hotly contested issue right now because they can't agree as to how much Angelos needs to pay the Nats for the rights. The longer it gets dragged out the higher the price goes since when this start 3 years ago the Nats were a steaming pile of poop and now they are leading the division and have gone to the playoffs (I effing hate the Cards).
Angelos currently gets 75% of the revenue from MASN as well. It was the only way MLB could get him to back off his objections to baseball in DC and the deal was made with MLB before the Lerner's were brought in to be the owners so they were stuck with it. The deal started at 90% in 2005 and goes down 1% annually until the Nats get to 33%. There are reviews of the TV draw equity every five years in the deal, but Angelos contested both of the two reviews so far and did better than expected in arbitration, which is why he still has 75% instead of something less.
The Lerners at this point are asking MLB to allow them to launch their own network or sell their television rights separate of MASN to another network like FOX or NBC Sports because of changes to the labor agreement that will make them ineligible for revenue sharing because they are considered one of the top 15 markets in MLB, so regardless of their comparatively small TV income, they wont get subsidized after the 2016 season.
That Peter Angelos, he's a daisy... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KfbAFgD2mLo
Oh, there ya go, what he said.
I rooted for NO football, even when I was in college and was conflicted about the Orioles even though I knew the Ripkins.
You still miss the Colts after they ran out?
No way, Bob Ursay was the reason I stopped watching nearly all professional sports.
I went rugby and badmouthed American Football for almost 20 years until I discovered the lunch pail.
Very Egbert. Overdone Scrum. Football Glad Your Back.
But it's the same team. Who really cares what we call them? They're still ours. And frankly, it's not a great name - it was a name selected by an old racist dude when he bought the Boston Braves. This is our chance to make it something really cool, and I really don't understand why we are fighting it so much when it really isn't that important.
EDIT - I want to add that this is a losing fight - the name is getting changed eventually. Embrace it now and pick something badass to get it over with. I'm sure you won't care once the games start.
I have to agree, "Redskins" is a pretty shitty name if you look at it without wearing nostalgia goggles.
So - you want your NFL team owner to look to high school popularity polls for guidance? That's a real recipe for disaster. As for the false argument that redskin is not derogatory, that only makes you appear to be unable to separate sports allegiances for much more important life decisions. You should be better than that, and I presume you are. Just because you grew up liking the Redskins, don't be Dan Snyder and act racist because it was what you learned as a child. There comes a time to remember sports are not above society. The Redskins naming issue is one of those occasions. Dan Snyder, and those defenders of a bad name in the sake of nostalgia, need to look at the bigger picture.
I could be wrong here, but uh, did you just allege that Dan Snyder is a racicist?
Racicist? No. Sorry, couldn't resist. Seriously, yes I alleged Dan Snyder acted/acts racist in his defense of Redskins for sentimentality sake. Just as many southerners acted racist in their defense of sentimental 'traditions' that were racist. What would you call refusing to change a racist name despite overwhelming evidence it was racist and insulted an ethnicity? EDIT - I don't think it is 'alleging' at all, it's plain - Dan Snyder is being racist by continuing the name.
But, you know -- if a bunch of white people want to solidify their moral cred by calling other white people racist, is a little something like reality going to stop them?
If someone wants to hide their racism behind sentimentality, is a little unpopularity going to stop them? Snyder is being obstinate because he has the financial backing to do so. I find it pretty funny the number of fans who have always hated him for his ownership bungling at every turn, but align with him on this one. Like Donald Sterling, he will eventually lose on this, even though it will take quite a while.
This...:
is a delightful little bit of sophistry. In what way do you think Snyder is hiding racism behind sentimentality? In the way you can deduce the hidden bigotry he holds dear to his heart but never dares speak?
Yup. Sounds like a racist to me. Just not to 90% of Native Americans. Insignificant bunch of knuckle-dragging racists, amiright?
So... The people who this is supposed to be offending aren't offended by it or even consider it offensive? So it's really just offending the people wanting to be offended and has to change? Yup, that sounds about right.
'Merica
If it weren't offending some American Indians, they wouldn't be opposed to it, yet they are. Are all? No. Then again, some old black guys never complained when they were called 'boy' or other insulting names back in the day, either. 'Merica? We'd prefer to keep doing the wrong thing, just because we used to do the wrong thing? No, I didn't think so.
http://cips.csusb.edu/docs/PressRelease.pdf
New study finds that 67% are actually offended by it. Don't base your arguments off "polls" that were created solely to defend the team name.
Oops! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t2PXlUjWz5M
Please actually read that PDF. He surveyed 390 total people, 98 of which were American Indians. It also states that they were collected from local Pow-Wows. The sample size is extremely small and non-diverse in location for the American Indians surveyed. I can do the same thing with tribes in tidewater Virginia and get an entirely opposite response. The group is too diverse and spread out to just poll one location.
This is just a weightless smear. What evidence can you offer that the poll referenced by CBS was created solely to defend the team name. Simply stating a thing does not make it so.
One could fairly dismiss your comment with the following rebuttal:
"Don't base your arguments off "polls" that were created solely to defend the proposition that "redskins" is a racist term."
I see that downthread, Zom has done an adequate job of rebutting it in a more specific way.
ETA: I don't mean any disrespect by the adjective "adequate". I should have said "excellent".
ETA2: Just adding this in here for the serial downvoters. I understand that my opinion offends you. I am not likely to change my opinion without reason. Do you have a specific rebuttal to any of my points? Do you just hate that I questioned the abolute moral superiority on this issue that you feel you possess? Do you even comprehend that on this site, downvotes are not supposed to be used for a difference in opinion?
I'm not asking because I'm offended by the downvotes. Obviously I've got plenty turkey legs to spare.
I'm mostly just disappointed in the lost opportunity to debate my opponents in a rational way, rather than having them digitally sling rotten tomatoes from hiding at such outlandish statements I've made such as: Dictionary quotes; the value of solid data, and methodology in the studies that collect them; the value of empirical objective evidence relative to subjective conjecture; a dry discussion on the finer points of various papers; and the occasional rhetorical device employed to point out the possible unintended consequences and/or logical fallacies of my opponents' arguments.
Or maybe you just think semicolons are racist.
I guess I should just be content in the apparent abdication of the argument by so many people in the face of my emotionally dry reasoning. I will just have to conclude that while you apparently have an argument you are unwilling or unable to defend, you sure as hell are willing to abuse others for defending theirs.
Wasn't it a study funded by the NFL franchise? I don't generally trust or believe any study that is funded by an involved party in any matter.
Well, one could call that point of view "prejudiced" then, yes?
What should count in the pursuit of truth and statistical validity is the methodology of the study.
Honestly, what I think should happen here is that the NFL or the Redskins should fund an unbiased third party polling of registered tribes. Have them allow their members to vote on yes, no, or no opinion and then determine how many find the term offensive or a racial slur. That way we'll have a better idea of how the word is perceived and can actually make a decision that isn't based off of or swayed because of over the top sensationalism based off of false etymology.
I'm sure that would be cheaper than an army of lawyers and we can actually learn something in the process instead of having two groups just shout at each other.
^this.
The origin of the name 'Redskins' is terrible. The term originally was coined as a name for the scalps of Native Americans, which the British government was paying bounties for. But at the same time, the only power words have is the power we give them, and it's been a few centuries since Redskins has been used in that context. It doesn't mean the same thing anymore.I have no attachment to the name at all and don't care at all if they change it, but it really feels like it's being changed at the behest of a very small, but vocal group that isn't representative of how the majority of Native Americans actually feel about it.Edit: First part of comment based on faulty information
I personally feel like the name ought to be changed. It really is a crappy name, when viewed objectively. Nobody in their right mind would try to name a team The Redskins today if the Washington Redskins were not a team. There's a reason for this - the name is objectively racist, and has a history of oppression associated with it. Why on Earth do we want our team to continue to be associated with the frankly tragic way the Native American population was treated by European settlers and then later by the US government? Why even go there? And just saying "It's cool, we're taking it back!" like the guy in Clerks 2 is rediculous. Furthermore, for a team with a checkered history with racism (ahem, last team to integrate), we don't exactly get the benefit of the doubt here.
Outside of "as a sports team" what context is the word Redskins used in anymore? If I called someone a Redskin, what would they think I meant? I feel like the connotation isn't exactly sterling. Why remain so persistent in keeping something that doesn't impact your product on the field at all, and is frankly a crappy name anyhow? Lets change it to something cool and be done with all this crap.
This is false. It was coined to identify Native Americans. Go look up the report of the Smithsonian researcher who dug into the history of the word. The documents that put bounties on their heads never used the word Red Skin, they used Indian.
Give 'em a break, zom. It's hard to find time for research when people have so much moral superiority to assert.
I don't feel I was asserting any moral superiority...I just made the mistake of reading a misleading article and taking it at face value.
I am personally not offended by the term. I was agreeing with you...
Upvote for setting me straight though.
Back atcha!
And apologies for my scattershot "'em".
I was referring to everyone who recognizes racism when they divine it from the dark and guarded hearts of their opposition.
I re-read the article that I got that info from (http://www.esquire.com/blogs/news/true-redskins-meaning) and you may be right. This author asserts those documents existed and then asserts that's where the name came from and I took it at face value.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
100 times this. Like someone previously stated, it has stopped meaning what they're alleging a long time ago. By forcing this issue down everyone's throats it is giving the word a lot more power than it has had in many many years.
Dan Snyder is racist for keeping a team name just like Jerry Jones is sexist for keeping the Dallas franchise the Cowboys. I mean, what about all the cowgirls that are being marginalized? We should change their name to the Dallas Cowpeople. Because political correctness. /s
You're opening up a whole new can of worms. My high school mascot was the "stallion" which similar to many mascots is, by definition, a male animal and creates all kinds of problems for those varsity "Lady Stallions"...Needless to say, its nearly impossible to stay politically correct in this day and age. But at least a "cowboy" is a glorified American figure and certainly not considered racist.
To clarify, the /s at the end denotes Sarcastica font. I was utilizing similar logic to that of the PC crowd to show how ridiculous it is.
Until a biological female plays football for the NFL franchise in Dallas, this tongue-in-cheek comment makes no sense.
In the same way that the Washington example makes sense because the roster is just stacked with Injuns?
Whoa! Ok, redskins is one thing but take it easy on the "injuns" remark.
Why? Is there something wrong with using the dialectical spelling of Indians? Not that it'll change whether or not I use it, I just had no idea Southern accents were now politically incorrect.
This has been a question in my mind since this came up in '99. I didn't think redskin was derogatory, but I thought 'injun' was.
Redskin wasn't derogatory. It was an identifier that the Natives gave themselves.
Injun is only a dialectical spelling of Indian. So unless Indian is derogatory (it's not), injun isn't either.
And besides, I have yet to see compelling evidence that Tony Romo is not in fact female.
To be fair, I'm extremely racist against Cowboys. They cross the Texas border and take all our ranching jobs.
I saw this yesterday but didn't respond -
I think I might have said this poorly, so I'll elaborate a little. I don't think polls of any sort, particularly of the high school popularity type, should be used as guidance.
What I mean is that there are lots of high school around the country that still use the nickname, and if I remember an article about this correctly, some of those high school are majority native american. If this term was so derogatory, then why would there still be high schools of native american demographic that use it?
If all of those schools were to decide that the name was so bad it needed to be changed, they'd change it in a heartbeat. If and when that happens, I'll accept the fact that it is offensive to the entire social/racial group, and would agree it's time for change.
There was a Dakota school that was called the "Fighting Sioux" that after a state vote had it's name changed because it was inappropriate or offensive. Ironically the Sioux tribe was fine with the name and said they could keep it; it was everyone else not associated with the tribe that took issue.
I think this is one thing that bothers me about the whole issue, at least to an extent. It seems that the bus on this issue is being driven in large part by people that don't really have a right to say one way or the other. Don't get me wrong, if people of native american descent are offended, by all means, hear them out.
But when Peter King, a fat white guy from Massachusetts is pounding the drum about it, count me as a little cynical.
Oh I completely agree. People completely removed from the situation are blazing the war path. It's a crusade no one asked for and is outright ignoring the people supposedly affected as if they don't know what's good for them. It's downright insulting
The other part that irks me is how misinformed the people leading the charge are on the issue and the history to begin with. They are presenting false information as fact and ignoring the people their supposedly protecting.
^This.
The entire issue has more to do with white people asserting their own perceived moral authority so everyone can high five each other at their work happy hour.
Perhaps changing the name of the NFL team would set a precedent that all those high schools would follow?
I understand your reasoning, but as soon as your logo has head of a 'native american' on it, that reasoning goes out the window. If they just had a big 'R' on the side of the helmet......maybe.
Don't forget the state and every university in Oklahoma must change as well since it means "red people" in Choctaw. And the Redskins logo was designed by...wait for it...a native american.
Absolutely hilarious someone down voted this comment. Facts really do get in the way of opinions eh?
Also I just want to ask because I'm not clear on this.
The ruling passed by a 2-1 vote? Are there only 3 people in the patent office with the power to decide whether a patent should be revoked? Because that seems like a whole heck of a lot of power for such a small group to decide...
I think that's meant more like a two-thirds majority abbreviation rather than literally 3 people voting. Although I wouldn't be surprised if there were truly 3 old guys sitting around in an old conference room with no windows when they made this decision.
No, it's 3 people.
#sources (ESPN doesn't count)
Here is the actual decision:
http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=92046185&pty=CAN&eno=199
The three judges that made this decision were
Kuhlke wrote the opinion for the majority and Bergsman was the dissenting vote:
He had some interesting stuff to say regarding the case:
http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-Sports/2014/06/18/Trademark-Dissent-B...
The comment speaking to the evidence on the majority was one of the main reasons the previous decision in 2003 was overturned by the US Federal Court of Appeals in DC. This same court will be sitting on the appeal of this case as well.
I think this is what fascinates me. Regardless of how you feel on the situation, one way or the other, why has no one bothered to take up-to-date hard evidence in the form of actual polls of Native Americans?
If this is such the huge issue that it seems to be, shouldn't we be actually asking as many Native Americans how they feel about it in order to get a grasp on how the people affected feel? Then we should have reasoned discussion and attempts to solve the problem if necessary.
Right now it just seems like everyone has their opinion and it's just a big shouting match with no one bothering to find hard facts.
So basically America.
I kind of like the Washington Redskin Potatoes known affectionately as the "redskins".
There is no denying that the word redskin is considered derogatory.
As a fan of the Washington football team for many years I say change the name. I do not want to be associated with anything derogatory. Why would I call my team a derogatory reference? It is especially insulting since everyone knows the Native Americans were screwed over time and agin by the government in Washington. Why would indians as a mascot be considered good luck?. It is not a good tradition to keep and time is against it. Embrace change. I know this will not sit well with the traditionalists but it is past time to move on.
Not to mention the name was conjured up by one of the most well known racists in sports. Make no mistake, George Preston Marshall was an incredible racist, going out of his way to avoid signing African American players even as the league was desegregating. To say the initial use of the nickname was not racist, knowing the later actions of the man who chose it... Ehh... The league as a whole will be better off if Snyder moves away from the name.
GPM is why to this day there are so many Cowboy fans in the District. Last team to integrate and all.
One wonders at the process of picking the name for his cherished team.
All those racist terms, yet he settled on "Redskins". Do you suppose he picked it out of a hat? Just complete luck they aren't called "The Washington Sheep Shaggers"?
Maybe his daughter eloped with a "nasty brutish" native. Or he broke down in one of the "territories" one time, and the local tow truck charged him double the going rate.
Or maybe -- and understand, I'm way out in left field here... just throwing crap up against the wall that nobody in their right mind would believe -- maybe he chose a name that evoked the warrior, never-say-die spirit he wished his team to be known for.
I know. That's just crazy talk.
...and yet, somehow the known racist ended up naming his team with a blatantly racist term... Quite the coincidence...
It is interesting watching all the excuses for why the team should still be named 'Redskins'. There's always an understood but not stated "yes, I know the term is racist but..." qualifier thrown in there to justify the position you're taking.
... And I find it interesting how freely people on your side of the argument imply everyone who disagrees with them are racist or ignorant.
Because "the racist" was so racist, he wanted to be called what he hated. Q.E.D.
Facts be damned. Intent be damned (or at best, divined). Etymology be damned.
All that counts is your interpretation of a word that 90% of the people who ought to find the term offensive just ignorantly refuse to.
Don't get me wrong. I'm just a little envious of the power the "Brotherhood"..pardon me..."Peoplehood of the Perpetually Offended" has over the lives of millions of other people in all manner of minutiae. Add all those little regulations, restrictions, prohibitions and thought policing together, and soon enough, you can control the big details as well.
Hell of a racket.
And for the record: Despite everything, I haven't downvoted anyone here. Just thought I'd throw that out there for the "Tolerance" brigades to ponder.
Downvoting... meh... some people just don't like an opinion that differs from their own.
I find it very interesting that your response to someone saying that a terminology you like to use is racist is to immediately belittle them instead of trying to have the dialogue into trying to reason WHY some might find it offensive. "Brotherhood"... "Peoplehood of the Perpetually Offended" turns a serious situation into a farce, and that's the exact problem that is being pointed out right here. Do you also say the same thing to African Americans when they get outraged when they're called the n-word? Tell them to stop being offended, and that THEY'RE the ones with the problem for being offended? No? Then what's the difference here? And before you start saying "well, thats the n-word... this is different". The term redskin was used in the exact same vein as the n-word to refer to a race of people. It is not a respectful term, it is not a term that is used to conjure up the dignified history of the race of people. No, its a racial slur intended as an insult to the person its referencing.
I find it interesting that you know the terminology I like to use. Maybe I prefer "Sheep Shaggers". One might say that I am taking my lead from the OP in using the word "Redskins" in this thread. Who was that guy?
Oh.
I find it interesting that you have no compunction against using the horribly offensive word "Redskins", but must refer to another pejorative, one presumes equally offensive in your mind, as "the n-word."
What do you suppose that implies?
I find it sad that you are misinformed about the etymology and standing of the "R-word", and that when debating a contrived issue where one side is willfully determined to ignore data contrary to their position, the best possible avenue just may be for that debate to be treated as a farce.
You have absolutely no desire to actually have a discussion on the subject. Time and time again, your response to being questioned is to attack the person who is asking the question.
And good point on me typing the name out. I won't do it again. I'll just refer to them as the R* from now on. But I again ask, why do you personally find it acceptable to continue using the term knowing that those of the race to which it refers finds it to be as offensive as your typical racial slur? I'm sure you could find a few African Americans at a given time in the past who were not offended by the n-word when it was prominently used. The team name is a racial slur, why do you think its acceptable to use? If you were to meet a native american out on the street, would you call them that name?
And why do you continue to ignore that 90% of those this term is supposed to offend do not find it offensive? You find it to be a personal attack when I point out that you are uninformed. You can lead a dehydrated horse to water, but you can't keep it from being offended you assumed it was thirsty.
To repeat an earlier post up-thread:
So the problem is they just aren't smart enough to be offended by the word their ancestors created to describe them in casual conversation with the "W-word Man"?
Or is it something else? Please do educate me why so many Native Americans can't seem to gin up the same outrage as so many non Native Americans.
Tell me how I'd know if I met a native american on the street? This is actually not a rhetorical question. It's an exercise of your Tolerance.
So, we're at the tailgate, and you say "Krak - go over to those guys and ask the Native American for a bottle of mustard", and I say "Sure buddy -- which one is that?", and you say...
ETA: And to your question, I find it fine to say "Washington Redskins" because that is the name of the team.
I'm kind of specific that way. Like to call things what they are. It's a bad habit, I admit.
I'm happy to weigh in here because you've confused a lot of things:
1) You've obviously not read Goodard's paper. HERE He was asked to research the entymology of the term "redskin" by order to help resolve a legal dispute. The actual claim of the plaintiff being:
The paper was not written to disprove that the word is or is not definitively, nor whether the term has since become derogatory or racist. It was written only to prove/disprove this one claim.
The entire paper is a great read but it is only about factual occurrences of the word in known written correspondence. It doesn't and cannot definitively prove that the word wasn't used in a derogatory sense at the time. It has the limitations of physical proof.
However, if you scroll to the very last sentence of the paper Goddard actually sneaks something extremely pertinent in. Most people misunderstand the statement, here it is:
He is stating 2 things here:
a) that, as was purposed by the paper, the word in its origin cannot be proven to be racist.
and b) he actually just said that the word is racist.
This is the most important sentence of the entire paper and most everyone overlooks it. The paper proved the point. There was no merit to that specific claim about "redskin" origin being about bloody scalps for payment. However, with the last sentence he is saying that the word is now regarded as derogatory. using the word "obloquy" as an open door for others to claim the term is racist without needing to use the word racist himself. Again that was not the purpose of his paper.
2) If you read into Colonial history more you will find that there are MANY occurrences of words that had completely benign origins that became slurs all over the world in every country where Europeans came into contact with native peoples. Coolie, Abbo, Cushi, etc, etc, etc
Just because they started benign does not mean that they had not become nor or not considered now to be highly offensive. You call an Australian Aboriginal an "Abbo" and he'll kick your teeth in. But it originated from Australians panache to shorten words into nicknames: breakie for breakfast and so on. Only later becoming a slur.
So you can imagine that even if Native Americans used the term to describe themselves as redskins it was because a) they needed a distinguishing word that was different from Europeans and b) they were taught that word by white people because they communicated in English. So to say its origins were not racist because Native Americans used the term is terribly misinformed.
3) many point to the fact that many Native Americans don't think the term is racist and that they even use the mascot themselves. They fail to mention that in every culture where a colonial name turned to a slur it was adopted by those being slurred as a word of empowerment internal to the group, and a term of racism external to the group. Saying that, if I'm Native American its ok for me to say it but not you.
Personally, I've never had an issue with it. Personally, I think USA is hypersensitive about politics, religion, kids, sex... everything. And this MAY be one of those things, but am I the right person to judge? No. Are you or any fan of a sports team? No. Who should make that judgment are the leaders of the tribal nations. Let them vote. We're a democratic country. Vote and move on.
Welcome to the conversation. TL for the thoughtful response.
I think I must disagree on the value of that last sentence to the opposing arguments. It appears to greatly bolster my argument: This word which has no apparent disparaging origin that he can find, has only recently been considered in disparaging terms.
This is a fairly neutral statement that doesn't explore who exactly turned this word into a "bad" term, which is precisely the point of my side of the debate.
Why should the rest of the world jump when some small loud minority decides that a heretofore benign word is offensive?
Of course the paper is not definitive proof of the origins of the word. It would be almost impossible for this or any paper to be definitive about historical esoterica.
What he does, and I really can't understand your disagreement, is take all the evidence he could, find multiple references bolstering the idea that the origin of "redskin" was very likely coined by Native Americans, was almost definitely never considered bigoted by either the European settlers or the indigenous folk they met, and has only recently been considered in derogatory terms.
First, one can imagine all sorts of things. That's not a terribly constructive argument though when one has some pretty compelling evidence on one's side. If one reads the paper closely,(The Native American Sources
of Redskin) one finds documented evidence suggesting the term "redskin" had its origins in a variety of Native American languages that had words defining the new European/Native American paradigm in terms of color. So when you say they were taught the English word "redskin" and it is true, you ignore that the English word is a direct translation of various Native American terms that were taught to the Europeans.
I just don't see how you reach the definitive statements you conclude with. You admit a lack of supporting evidence that the term is racist, admit a raft of evidence supporting the claim that it is not a racist term, and somehow conclude that using that second set of evidence to claim the origins of it weren't racist is misinformed?
I fail to follow the logic of that statement.
I agree with the rest of point 2 -- certainly that phenomena exists. I do not see any evidence it is applicable to the term "redskin".
And I agree with your point 3. I again do not think it applies to this situation given the likeliest etymology of the word, and its historical usage.
I'm just going to take this opportunity to flip the script for a moment. A though experiment for those who are so fervently in favor of having Washington change their name.
It's the year 2024, and the word Hokey (also spelled as Hokie) is deemed officially offensive by LGBT community because some small number of people have taken to calling their marriages "Hokey", implying they are fake and value-less. Various spins on this included calling any gay couple "Hokeybirds".
hokie
Main Entry: hokie
Part of Speech: adj
Definition: corny and contrived, fake and melodramatic, insincerely emotional; also written hokey
Usage: slang
Do you agree? If not, what's your argument against changing the name of the VT Hokies and its mascot?
good counters, but:
Not sure how this is bolstering your argument. No matter it is a recent or ancient occurrence he is still saying that the word is viewed as derogatory now. The present matters to the contemporary. Otherwise the you could ague too many things about how things that were historically perceived as acceptable should be so now, eg. slaves.
does it matter who turned the word into something negative? Not sure why that would be relevant. Again, to correlate the term "Abbo" used benignly was turned negative by whites and whites first called for the word to not be used. Did not being the first to complain mean that native Aboriginals were not hurt by it or accepted the term?
There is too much historical data missing to say that you can only use physical data for interpretation and have an accurate representation of the past. Case in point, you saying "that if one reads carefully you find the term "redskin" had origins in a variety of Native American languages", and so on. So according to you this is not a very compelling argument because it lacks physical proof. Native Americans did not write these things down into hard copy books. It's all suggested through the writing of Europeans and people making accounts of history in the later years of life. So I am not "ignoring that the English word is a direct translation of various Native American terms" I am in fact stating that this is precisely why the origin can not be proved to be totally benign. There is no definitive accounts, which is unlike terms such as "Abbo" and "Coolie" and others.
Not sure I admitted anything that you say here. If you want supporting evidence you can travel to my hometown and speak to some of my friends in the Paiute Nation. They will tell you at length how offensive the term is to them. That would be all the evidence you say you require. The "raft of evidence" you say proves the term is not racist is moot in my view if those associated with the word also find it offensive. Fact is some Native American Nations do and some don't. Which is why I actually concluded that it was neither your place nor my place to make any conclusion. It's for those that the term is in reference of.
Your point about Hokie as a term is well taken. I don't see it ever happening but well taken. This is why I said I feel USA is hypersensitive about most things. However, a word's meaning changes over time. It has happened throughout history. It happens because of cultural change. Just because something was one thing in history does not mean that it is the same thing now. This is the easiest argument to disprove. Basing your argument that the term is not offensive because the origins are benign is flawed. Saying that Native Americans are not offended by it, no matter the raft, is also flawed because I know many who are. And clearly there are at least a minority that is and they are outspoken about it.
To be clear. I have never had an issue with the term, but that term does not apply to me or any fan of a sports team that is not Native American. Let them decide what to do with it.
First off, can't we all just get along?
Second, I think you can agree to disagree!
When it comes to intelligently debating controversial issues on the internet, it can't really be done better than these two are doing it. Personally, I've enjoyed reading both perspectives.
Krak and I agree about most things as far as I remember. I wouldn't say we are not getting along. Just a debate. I suspect he feels the same.
Indeed I do.
I don't disagree with this at all. Which is why my argument is, as I said in the last post, based on several things.
When I take on a debate, I find it best to argue if I don't attack conclusions, but focus rather on the legs upon which the opposing side's arguments rest.
Leg 1:
George Preston Marshall was a racist, so it is obvious he chose to name his team the "Redskins" for racist reasons.
I'm still awaiting evidence that this was in fact the case. So far the arguement is that he hated blacks, so he must have hated the Native Peoples as well, and so much so, that instead of calling his team the "N-words", he called them the "Redskins". Because rich racist people name their teams after things they hate.
This is a ridiculous assertion on its face.
Leg 2:
It has been stated with regularity and great conviction that the term has always been racist, both in intent and in origin.
The paper in question states quite clearly that all the evidence in play, either in physical documentation or the verbal histories of the First Peoples, indicates this leg is predicated on the scenario you so helpfully stated as "One can Imagine."
To profess a doubt in faithfulness of Europeans who transcribed the various Native words for "red-skin" that the Natives used, requires one to imagine some sort of conspiracy theory in play specifically so that future generations could use the term freely but with the sneaky sense of satisfaction they were "putting one over" on the PC police.
This beggars belief, given that at the time, people were not ashamed of bald racism in the least, and the PC police didn't exist.
I think we can all agree that Leg 2 of the opposition's argument is dismantled. At the very best, if the historical evidence is so weak that I cannot use the evidence in play for my argument, they certainly cannot use it for theirs.
Leg 3:
It has been suggested that history doesn't matter: The term is offensive today.
To which I gave evidence that the people offended by this are overwhelmingly not the people who are supposed to be offended. Your Paiute friends are in a decided minority, and how many of them feel today about the term, I would hazard, is likely different than how they felt before this issue became an issue.
So if 90% of the people who are supposed to be offended, it seems to be a weak argument to state we should be forcing other parties who are using the term in reverence to cease using it, under penalty of the law.
This is why I asked what I feel is the pertinent question of 'Who turned this into the racial cause du jour?'
You say this doesn't matter, which I think is short-sighted. Yes, I agree: If there is some large cultural movement towards using a term in a perjorative racial manner, some serious thought should be given to retiring the word.
I just don't see that at play here. I don't see it at all. No evidence has been given in support of this.
Indeed, the exact opposite has occured. When people hear "The Redskins massacred their opponents yesterday" you don't think a bunch of tomahawk wielding sub-human avages ran wild through some small village, do you? I would bet you couldn't find 1 person in a hundred that did legitimately think that.
Instead they think: "Wow. Washington played Offense and Defense on the same day!"
What we have is, at best, a small group of people who decided to make an issue where one did not exist. When this occurs, I don't think it is fair to call the people in the majority "Racist" when they attempt to determine the merits of this minority group's arguments, or even when we suspect that the offended parties might have some cloudy motivations.
Whatever the case, it is exceedingly easy to convince 10% of the people of this country of just about anything. Deciding to take official action based on such a small minority is a terrible precendent to set.
If those arguing in favor of this action today think that it is not a dangerous precedent, well, as I said earlier, when the pendulum swings the other way, they are likely to have a lot of second thoughts.
So yes, in some circles he does not expound upon in his paper, Goodard states that recently the term may be considered deragotory. I can't help but think you are reading way too much into one sentence. If you think it doens't matter what impetus caused it to be derogatory, then you are accepting that anyone, at any time, can force everyone else in this country to change their vocabulary under penalty by the state.
The standing of this leg ultimately is subjective.
Either you believe that a minority of 10% of the alleged aggrieved party (less when this issue first arose) is enough to bring the power of the state in play.
Or you do not, for all the reasons I have stated, and probably several I have not.
As another thought experiment, and an aside, because I have seen no proof that the premise of the name being chosen for racist reasons is accurate:
Turn Leg 3 on its head. If history doesn't matter, and current culture is paramount, then why should it matter if the original owner of the Redskins chose that name for racist reasons? It is quite obvious that it is not used in racist terms today.
I was worried that this would come back to bite me, as I got loose with my verbiage. In rereading, I was hopeful that context within which it was written would help me avoid this, but it did not.
When I wrote this previously:
I was speaking of the genesis of the term. So I hope that in that context, it negates the need to respond to your specific rebuttal.
Finally: Yes, I appreciate a calm debate, but I will admit it is strange to have to debate someone who agrees with my position on the issue in general.
I was looking forward to any of the defenders of the above 3 stated legs to defend their position with some factual evidence.
Unfortunately, these debates often start with one side pre-emptively either strongly implying or outright stating that the other side is "racist and ignorant". And then taking offense when it is pointed out they their side is weak on actual facts.
It is hardly fertile ground upon which to have a rational discussion. Which, I suspect, is the point. If the debate rests on emotion, you don't need facts to back you up. You just need a megaphone and a loud cheering section.
Admittedly, I'm in it more for the debate on it's merits than being passionately swayed one way or the other.
Quick responses before I go to sleep:
Leg 1: Owner is a racist
no argument from me here. I don't really care so much about this argument because I have never seen anything specific about it either.
Leg 2: Historical Origin
I don't think this is the case at all. I think it's more of taking empirical interpretations based on the facts given and the facts of correlating circumstances. My point was not that there was a conspiracy rather that there is no definitive proof because as you correctly noted it originated from within Native American culture and they did not keep records. Therefore a transcribed account could easily be flawed due to misinterpretation, mistakes in translation, etc.
My original point though is being misconstrued because of what you deem as poor word choice "one can imagine" in that it would be better to say "empirically from the absence of definitive physical proof one can interpret". The point however was even if it originated from within Native American culture the English word "redskin" was given to them, not created from within.
Here I agree that the evidence in play is awash for both sides because of the lack of definitive proof, which was my point.
Leg 3: Offensive to the minority
This to me is the crux of the debate. Anyone stating arguments about the owner or history in my mind are missing the point, and that's why there are so many misrepresentations of the facts. The point is whether the term is offensive now.
I understand your points here. At present it is definitely a minority of native American people that publicly speak out about it. And in a democratic society we deem the majority the winner.
But the failure in the logic of your argument to me is to point out that "most" people would only ever think of a sports team when the term "redskins" is said. I would say that is true most definitely in a population sense. It however fails to recognize that the term itself is a generalization of 500+ Nations of people that once lived on these lands. A generalization that covered cultures and people as diverse as modern Europe, Africa and Asia. Within those surviving people there will undoubtedly be those that hate it, those that don't mind and those that are proud of it.
if you as a person feel you are in the majority and therefore the majority has spoken then you have that right. For me, I believe that in this particular case I can see merit in the minority of people that hate the term precisely because it is a generalized term. Again this correlates with words use throughout history in colonial times for natives. Coolie is a great example where it was used in many cultures and almost unilaterally was deemed derogatory, except for a few places like Indonesia who adopted the word. An overgeneralized word for a diverse population dilutes the minority. Does that mean the term is not offensive? No.
Why? So if for example (only example not factual) the Sioux and Cherokee say "we are proud of this word" but only the Paiutes say "this word is racist". Your argument that the majority has spoken is just wrong. These are completely different nations of people that you are marginalizing as much as the term does. In fact the majority of the Paiutes may feel it is racist. They are not Sioux, Apache, Hopi or any other people. They are their own people and are in fact their own majority.
And this is ultimately why I feel no matter what your proof is, or your raft of evidence may show, I strongly believe the only people that can determine this are the people that the term is in reference to and hence marginalizes in doing so.
It has been an interesting back and forth, but I am reaching my limit on internet debate hours. :D
I think this is a difference without a distinction. "Interpret" or "Imagine", you are still relying on something other than what any evidence provides in this case. At least I have written Anglo histories and the consensus opinion of the Native Peoples for evidence going for me.
And I just don't see it your way on the whole "who gave whom the name redskin" kerfuffle. I'll just put it like this: Should we in the United States be upset that in France and Charlottesville they call us "Les tats-Unis"? Of course not: These are silly peoples with silly affectations. So I can't see any reason to be bent out of shape that the Europeans refer to Natives as "redskins", and when speaking English, the Natives use the same word.
All that is just a last comment on this Leg 2. We agree that at least it is a wash.
Having dispensed with the first 2 legs, we are indeed left with the last. Obviously I agree that it is the most difficult one, given the length I have written about it. This isn't because of the strength of the counter position, but because it is such a subjective thing.
Who is to decide what is or may be considered offensive?
And what is to be done about it?
I think my reservations about giving in unreservedly to a minority opinion on what may or may not be objectionable speech have been made about as fully as I can.
I understand the viewpoint that if any small number is offended, it simply isn't acceptable. But I wish the other side would understand the slippery slope we are on. Sure, it's all roses when the powers that be, in the State or in the Media, are on your side.
It is very likely that someday, on some issue, that isn't going to be the case.
I think that people do far better in life when they refuse to let real or imagined insults affect them in any real way. You don't diffuse hate by forbidding people from speaking. And if hate didn't exist before, it is only human nature to form resentments when they are forced to do things for the best of reasons by people they have previously had good relationships with, much less when the grounds for enforcement are as thin as in this case.
Ahh so now I have my own personal troll. Nice
Threw a leg your way to compensate. Good point made.
You seem to be smack in the middle of alot of controversial, angry discussions.
And I think we all know you have have been downvoting most everything I post.
Edited by poster
Haha...touche'
If BOTH of youse guys don't take it easy and careful The Almighty Joe is gonna come in and bring the Gallagher. I've seen it.
Not the Gallagher!!
Hey, leave me out of it. I made one reply and then kept my ass quiet as he spammed the place (which he is doing because he was asked by myself to not spam TKP on another discussion). Yes, I called him out on being obsessed because that's whats going on. He's following me around, spamming my discussions because he didn't like what I had to say earlier in the week. Its getting tiresome.
Respectfully, Alum07, that is your opinion and that is not true. I have a right to comment on any thread, just as you do. I am a frequent poster on TKP. I am NOT spamming, and frankly, saying so is a bit insulting. You seem to have a very defensive attitude towards anyone who disagree's with you.
Obsessed with you? no
A little upset with your condescending, holier than thou attitude towards myself and others? Yes
Actually, it was YOU who didn't like what I had to say. You took offense to some soccer flops and acted like a pompous know it all.
You made ONE reply? Thats not true and you know it.
Leave you out of it? You have been downvoting every single post I make. I am sure you won't deny it.
Thats my opinion.
I won't deal with you again. Seriously, chill out and stop acting like your opinion is better than everyone else's.
Bullshit. You replied 4 times to one comment without a single other comment from anyone else. That is the pure definition of spam.
If someone disagrees with me over something, fine. I like to share my beliefs, and will defend them if questioned. Sorry if this behavior does not agree with you.
I didn't give a shit WHAT you posted. You could have posted a couple gifs of monkeys humping for all I care. What I took issue with, and being the exact same thing I'm taking issue with in here is that you spammed the board when you did it with 3 separate posts within minutes of each other. I suggested you use the Edit button for situations like that and you called me a pompous asshole. At that point, I left the discussion because there was no reasoning with you.
Not true, I have upvoted some of your stuff. That being said, I find it silly you are trying to single me out when there are numerous downvotes to a vast majority of the comments you've made in here. I'm guessing because of the spam nature of them, as I have stated earlier.
Are both of you f-king serious!? Geez
You have your opinion of what is spam, I have mine. They differ.
You lack a sense of humor.
Everyone should be prepared to defend their opinion. I respect that. You need to respect that of others also.
You also need to treat others more respectfully.
I am done responding to you.
You might be right!
Enough with the f-king downlegging already!!! We're ALL TKP and ALL HOKIES! If you wanna downvote go to $ec$pn or that pathetic blog called The Cavalier. I implore!
I never downleg anyone, that is until Alum went on a downleg rampage against my soccer flop posts.
Which, thankfully, doesn't matter anymore, right?
There is flopping in every major contact sport.. who cares if its football, soccer, basketball. its sadly part of the game.. doesn't mean soccer is any less of a sport than those 3.
I play socce in a mens league.
I simply posted gifs of flops because they are funny.
It was treated as if I was juggling kittens...
Jeez Louise (not that any of you are named Louise)
What race is "Sheep Shaggers" derogatory towards?
Seriously though, to say that the term as it is used today for the team's name is not done in a racist fashion is appropriate and accurate.
However, to say that there was no racism involved when the name was first bestowed on the team by their owner that was a horrible, horrible racist is naive at the very best.
Apparently there are enough Native Americans raising an issue here for the US Patent Office to agree with them. So your continued assertion that the Native population as a whole is not offended by this term is completely irrelevant.
I'm just curious why everyone assumes that a racist owner would name the thing that he purchased with his own money after something he presumably hates?
I didn't say (nor do I know) if he hated Native Americans. Simply reinforcing the point that the guy was a well documented racist and as such, I don't think it's much a of a stretch to think that he would have had zero issue with that team name.
I'm not a Redskins fan, nor do I care if they change the name really. But I think there is enough of a push, whether someone agrees or not, to change the name that it merits discussion.
Times change, people change, the name of a franchise can certainly change. I remember in the PA area there used to be a cheese steak chain called 'Chinks". That was the nickname of the founder and owner. He decided to change that name for obvious reasons back a good time ago, even though it had nothing to with racism of any kind. So ultimately the "Why" is an irrelevant question. If there are enough people complaining about it that a US government entity becomes involved...
He fought tooth and nail against desegregation of the NFL, not against Native Americans. If he named the team after that which he hated he would have picked a name that was a slur against African Americans. Naming them the Redskins, was probably, in his mind, akin to naming them the Tribe or the Orangemen or the Braves. Unfortunately, being racist, he probably saw nothing wrong with the term Redskins and did not realize or was insensitive to the fact that, unlike those other team names, it was much more insensitive to those that it is a slur against.
The degenerate Welsh.
You say that with certainty. Can you link the data that the owner intended to racially smear Native Americans with an enterprise he poured so much money and effort into?
So all it takes is 10% (and those were 2013 numbers...the percentage was smaller before the outrage factory was at full capacity), to completely over-rule the other 90% on what is acceptable?
Or failing that, 2 out of 3 unelected bureaucrats?
Is that your iron-clad position?
Can you possibly fathom a situation where such a passionately held opinion, word, or practice of your own that might be at risk in that sort of world?
I can guarantee you I can find a few (more than a few) places down South where I could spout the N word freely, and find 90% of the local population to say that they find that acceptable. That doesn't mean it is right or should be tolerated.
This idea that something can only be offensive to people if and only if a large # of said people find it offensive is silly, quite frankly. Everyone is different and will tend to react to words, actions, ideals, or opinions of others in a different fashion. I don't subscribe to the thinking that we should just go changing everything because some people are just going to be wusses about a situation, but I don't think this is one of those situations.
To answer your question, we already live in a world like that. Or should we just never have allowed women to vote, African Americans to be considered people (or more than 3/5 of a person like the Constitution used to define them), gays to marry, etc etc etc. You are staking that because something is acceptable to a large % of people means its the right thing to do, and you are wrong.
Here's probably what he's trying to say. The people that this is supposed to be derogatory to or offend aren't offended by an overwhelming majority. I know for a fact that the Pamunkey Tribe doesn't give a rat's ass about the name or even like it, most of the tribe's football watchers are even fans of the team. I have a friend that's part of the tribe and I've watched games with them and that's actually how I learned that the name Redskin was not originally a derogatory name and just like saying "white man" or "black man." It was an identifier they most likely coined. Hell there are even Native American schools that call their teams Redskins
It's the fact that the majority of the people who are calling the team name offensive have no real connection to the tribes that it's supposedly the N-word equivalent that they claim. I know I can't stand when there are far more people that have no association with the word are offended than the people they're trying to protect. It seems disingenuous and at times selfish.
Your N-Word analogy fails because that word is still used every day as a way to put down that race. Redskin is not. In fact I'm sure most people have never actually heard the term Redskin used in everyday language that is not about the team or when the PC police start looking for something to bring up.
I think to keep hanging hats on that one data point from a survey with some serious validity questions does the argument a great disservice. Clearly there are many, many, many Native Americans that find the name offensive and many of those are actively fighting to have the name changed.
From the same article:
"Harjo declines to estimate what percentage of native people oppose the name. But she notes that the many organizations supporting her lawsuit include the Cherokee, Comanche, Oneida and Seminole tribes, as well as the National Congress of American Indians, the largest intertribal organization, which represents more than 250 groups with a combined enrollment of 1.2 million."
To marginalize all of these people by continuing to quote that survey as justification for the name is the the kind of structural oppression that still haunts us all today and probably will into the distant future.
You can find a place in the South (and why the South?), where if you spout the N-word, 90% of black people will be fine with that?
Can I tag along to keep count?
These right angles:
Cannot be squared with this circle:
The point is, what you think doesn't matter. After all, the Thought Police insist that your thoughts and prejudices are inevitably twisted by the advantages you've gained by your (wealth/skin color/nationality/education/going to VT). It's what the latest fad cause tells us to think that matters.
You are incorrect. We lived in a world where a determined minority can make its case to change the minds of the majority, as they did in abolition of slavery, overturning Jim Crow, and the women's Suffrage movement, and have with limited success in Homosexual marriage. We are moving toward a world where a determined minority can do any or all of censure you, fine you, get you fired, and remove your property for crossing the latest line in the PC sand. It is just a short divide to cross from there to begin jailing people for having the wrong beliefs.
If that doesn't give you pause when considering what might happen if/when the pendulum of public mores swings, well, you are in for a rude shock one day.
Negative. I never stated that at all, but it is certainly an easy argument for you to win were I doing so.
I am using that as evidence that this is a trumped up cause, along with the fact that the term "redskin" was likely coined by Native Americans, and was used with pride by them for generations. I am also using in my argument the continued lack of evidence the the original owner of the Redskins had any ill-intent towards Native Americans. It is a laughable assertion sans any evidence other than "He hated black people". It would be like Frank Beamer calling Virginia Tech "The Wahoos".
They based their decision on the testimony of six plaintiffs and a few "expert witnesses" and the dissenting judge specifically called out the evidence for not proving that a majority of the Native American population was offended by the term. That was his primary reason for voting against the removal of the trademarks.
The best evidence they presented might get them to a third of the total Native American population being offended and that evidence was a stretch. The entire population represented in this case makes up about 0.85% of the entire US population.
If I see one more phrase such as "there is no denying," or "the debate is over" when clearly it is not I am going to lose my mind. Clearly the debate is not over since we are having this discussion/debate. It is the most frustrating claim and seems to only be used when someone wants to end a conversation that they know they cannot win when facts are actually checked on a matter.
I feel like the Washington Red Tape would be an entertaining name. Snyder could even get a jab at the patent office. Plus they could keep the logo with an R. Feathers are somewhere in there dealing with red tape, right?
Disclaimer: I'm in no way being serious. I have no attachment to the name or the team. I follow Hokies in the NFL, not any particular team.
I live in the Pittsburgh area and am an ardent Steelers fan. However, when I lived in VA and attended Tech, I was a Redskins fan. I am getting really tired of the tyranny of the minorities. Everyone is offended by something. Don't change the name because a few people are looking for a reason to be offended.
It's not that a few people are offended - it's that the name, when viewed objectivley and without pre-concieved fandom is racist. It's literally about the color of the skin of a group of people (who I might add have a tragic history associated with the US).
That's the part I have trouble with. I am not offended if you call me white; I can understand that the N-word is offensive; because it was created and used to be offensive. I don't understand why black, or yellow or red is offensive. Maybe I am naive; but I don't think Redskins is any more offensive than Indians or Braves or Vikings. Although, I guess I could be offended by Yankees.
Redskins, on its own, was used as a derogatory term, the very same way n*****s was used. Some people also thought that word was socially acceptable as well.
Look, I agree that PC is getting out of control in this country, but we're talking about a term that was conceived as an insult to an entire race of people. If this wasn't about a sports team, there would be no debate. The word on its own is every bit as bad as any other racial slur you can use. That in itself is reason enough to ban it from the NFL.
It was not conceived as a derogatory term for anyone. In fact it was created by the very people it describes. Learn the history of what you're crusading against before you start shoving a fairy tale down everyone's throat as a fact.
If it's every bit as bad as any other slur, why is it that you have no problem typing out the word "redskins," but not the other slur you reference? If they're on par, why will you say one but not the other?
Beware brothers, logic earns you downlegs.
... this is hilarious to see people bicker about this stuff. Good Day!
Key phrase that you used is extremely accurate and is THE factor that the defenders willingly ignore - 'it's that the name, when viewed objectivley and without pre-concieved fandom is racist' - when viewed without preconceived fandom...
What about Minnesota Vikings, Cleveland Indians, Atlanta Braves, etc. We could go on forever with names that could be seen as derogatory to other people, groups, natives, whatever. Long story short, this is just ridiculous. Just another waste of American tax dollars at its finest. Go Hokies.
The difference between redskin and the ones you listed is that redskin has always been a racial slur, used as an insult towards those who it described. It is every bit the same as calling a black person the n-word.
Put it this way. If you met a native american, would you call him or her a redskin to his or her face?
Even Dan Snyder doesn't call them Redskins to their faces. Instead, he creates insulting 'support groups' for them while refusing to label them Redskins foundations. That, along with scores of other factors, should be enough reason for people to open their minds about this. Should...
Yea I hear ya, but this name has been here for years, and there has been a majority vote by native americans (over 90%) that say they could give two s**** about the name Redskins. I will say if Redskins was straight up equivalent to the n-word, then the name would of been gone a long time ago. You wouldn't have high schools adopting that name if it was the exact same derogatory slur. But like I said, I'm only putting in my tow cents to s*** can the government on how they are wasting our hard earned $$$
The green bay packers must be offensive to everything that has been packed!
Drop all team names! rabble rabble!
From a business perspective, I do not know why Dan Snyder is fighting this so hard. The longer this drags on, the more that brand gets tarnished. Come up with a new name and logo and sell a ton of new merchandise. Eventually, just about every Redskin fan with a jersey or t-shirt or hat, etc. is going to want versions of their merchandise with the new name and logo.
From a personality perspective I completely understand why Dan Snyder is fighting this so hard. I do not agree with his stance, but it was his boyhood dream to own the "Washington Redskins", not "The Washington NFL Franchise". Dan Snyder is a walking Napolean Complex with a huge wallet. He does not like being told what he can and cannot do. The more he is told to change the name, the more he will resist. This is the same man who fought to rip out a bunch of trees near his house just so he could see the bay from his window, despite the fact that removing said trees was against the law to prevent erosion of a protected area. Eventually, the local goverment acquiesced. He is used to throwing money at a problem to get what he wants. He will throw a ton of money at this issue to try and get what he wants. His fragile ego may not be able to handle the result.
Yes, as I said above, he is very much like Donald Sterling in many ways. He has the money to use to obtain his desires, whether they are positive or negative. He also has a distorted mindset about this, and will waste a lot of time & money fighting the inevitable result.
I think he's younger than Sterling.
Physically, yes. Socially, evidently not.
Probably because as soon as the brand name has been compromised his purchase will lose 30% of its brand name value.
On the positive side, if they force him to change the name he might be able to get out of the Fedex deal as the team called the Washington Redskins will no longer exist.
One of the risks of doing business. There were concerns raised about the Redskins name before he took ownership of the club.
From a business perspective, you'd think Dan would hire competent people and put together a winning franchise.
From a business perspective why would he not want to change it. It would cause everyone to go out and buy all new gear with the new name on it. I could see a guy like him changing the name or colors every year.
Because the Redskins brand has a substantial impact on the value of his franchise. According to Forbes, the Redskins brand accounts for approximately $150 million in the overall franchise value.
In other words, if the Feds tried to take the Redskins name by eminent domain, they'd owe Snyder $150 million.
As long time Redskin Fan, I was brainwashed from an early age.
In kindergarten/first grade every Friday our teacher would put on the Redskins fight song, the whole class would sing out loud!
So, until recently I could have never imagined changing the name of Redskins. The Redskins were a first class organization, until D. Snyder purchased the team. I wonder what Jack Kent Cooke would have done?
Anyways, I will promote name change to the Washington Generals (G. Trotters old beatdown) because D. Snyder deserves to own the longest loosing streak in NFL History.
In the mean time I will continue to go to more Hokies football games rather than the Redskins.
I think this actually boils down to a property rights issue....Snyder wants the name to remain, and political/pc/govt. types are attempting to impose their will on Snyder, and to an extent, the NFL. I don't want to tread into political issues per TKP guidelines, so I'll leave it at that. My gut feeling is that Snyder pulls his franchise to LA or some other locale that would love a team. I think this is sad, because there are a lot of Redskins fans that this would hurt/anger (full disclosure: I am NOT a Redskins fan).
Snyder isn't moving the team over this, because that wouldn't change a thing. And I get tired of NFL owners constantly saying "it's my team - this is a private business!" and then demanding public funds to build stadiums and tax exempt status.
It's not about where Snyder locates the team, as the team name is the problem, not the location. As for property rights, that would apply if Snyder had a place called N*ggerhead Ranch, but... oh, wait. Never mind. It's no more about imposing public will than it was with Donald Sterling... oh, wait. Never mind.
I don't think team is going anywhere, Jack Kent Cooke Stadium was built by Redskins owner Jack Kent Cooke, when Snyder got team his sold naming rights and changed it to Fed Ex Field (probably weasled his way around name change by using field instead of stadium). The Stadium is owned by Snyder, so hardly think he would move team to LA. It is unfortunate for Redskins fans, that no matter how inept Snyder is the franchise is a Money Making Cow! He can miss manage it till eternity and still make beaucoup dollars!
As long as NFL owners are more than happy to have their franchises/stadiums subsidized (heavily) by the US taxpayer, then I feel it should not be beneath them to listen to said public every now and again.
IT'S NOT MY FIGHT. ...and it's not Dan Synder's fight either.
I live in DC, have followed Washington my whole life, and as I have grown up have learned the term is racist and derogatory...but it doesn't matter what I think. If the team name offended my ethnic group, it would be my fight. Several people keep referencing a small minority taking offense by the name...but how many of us on this site are Native American? If majority ruled on issues like this, imagine what words would be acceptable. Just because they are a minority, doesn't mean they don't have a voice. Besides, Native Americans are a minority, because they were exterminated by the settlers. It is a painful history for them, and applaud them for standing up and trying to protect their heritage. Even Blacksburg High School changed their name from the Indians, which isn't nearly as offensive as "Redskins".
Just change the damn name and move on.
If you consider 1/16 to be a Native American. I am.
When Blacksburg High School was asked to vote to replace the name Indians, the school students, etc. voted in a vast majority to be called the "Indians" at which point the school board said you are now the bruins.
I kind of think it is Dan Snyder's fight, he bought the Washington Redskins, and could lose a ton of money if forced to change the name to something else
I don't particularly care if the name changes or not, I personally don't find it an offensive term, and someone posted here that said that even 90% of the Native Americans don't find it offensive either... how small of a number of people will we attempt to pacify? Surely we'll find some people offended by nearly every team name in sports.. do we change the name of a team that 50,000 people find offensive? 10,000? 5,000? 1? where is the line in the sand??
To add to this point, I think I remember another article (I think it was the Washington Post) where a Native American went on the record as saying he would be offended if they did change the name. So not only do you have to decide how small a minority you think merits taking action for, but you need to take it a step further and decide which tiny minority you want to side with.
Edit: Found the Article (it was CBS, not Washington Post)
I'm 1/2 Oneida, one of the tribes that has been pushing for the name change since the beginning (google Halbritter, Oneida, and Redskins and you'll see the history of this movement). My father and his entire family grew up on a reservation outside of Syracuse. In areas of the country where there are a lot of native americans, the racial divide between white people and native americans was very real. In fact, it still is to a certain extent. My father and his entire family personally experienced, and I witnessed as a young kid, the intent behind this word. To them, it was no different than the n-word and that is not an exaggeration.
I can remember 3 or 4 instances when I was young where we were denied service at gas stations (a big issue between NA's and whites in that area due to the tax implications that affected cost of gas) and restaurants. In one case, our lives were threatened and redskin was used specifically.
Having said all of that, it's true that a lot of native americans have moved on from the word. Do they think it's offensive? Probably. Do they care anymore? Probably not. That does not change what the word means, however. Native Americans are a dismissed minority, and some responses in this thread are a perfect example. "it's just native americans. they're being too sensitive. they're a small percentage of the population. etc etc." type of statements. in my opinion, regardless of the size of the race, it's wrong to disparage a group over something they have no control over. their ethnicity.
i have no problem with the logo. i love it actually. it strikes me as noble, proud and distinguished. the name should match. leave the logo but maybe choose an icon or figure from native american history as the name. warriors or indians are fine also. Washington Braves (as in home of THE) is probably my favorite though. don't care that it's already used.
it's DC. the capital of our country and i can't think of a more appropriate location for the native american race, however small in number we may be, to be honored rather than the epicenter of racial controversy.
anyways, just some personal experiences mixed with my opinion.
Great comment +1
Thanks for your perspective. I appreciate it.
I do take issue with this though:
I do not know if you are speaking about my comments. I haven't read any other comments suggesting what you are stating here, but I may have missed them.
If you are speaking about my comments, I would say you misunderstand what I have said. I do not base my arguments on the fact that a small percentage of population is offended. That part of my argument is that an overwhelming majority of the people whom this term is a supposed offense against, do not see that term, much less the name "Wahsington Redskins" as offensive.
Which leads to the questions:
How many people taking offense translates into an actionable issue requiring the power of the state to enforce?
Is there any limit to the words that can be excised from our vocabularies?
Should there be?
Should we petition to ban the use of the word Oklahoma?
How far does all this go?
And this is a perfectly sound opinion to have, and one that I have not seen argued otherwise on this thread or anywhere else. I hope you are not suggesting that someone here has indeed argue in favor of the Redskins keeping their name because racism is good. If so, please point out that comment so I can downvote it.
i wasn't singling anyone out; however there are some dismissive/cavalier type of comments. i understand why people feel the whole ordeal is frivolous. when you haven't experienced something firsthand, it's tough to related. i don't judge those people and get it. even though i have similar first hand experience, i can never relate to what african americans experienced decades ago and beyond.
when it comes to race, i believe there is no lower bound. 10 people. 50 people. Race is beyond our control. we are all created equal and i'm not a constitutional scholar or anything but i personally believe it's the federal government responsibility to protect those unalienable rights.
this may sound like a cop-out but with regards to Oklahoma, it's developed from the people's own tongue. it's a name they gave themselves and it's a subtle distinction but important. redskin, as far as my grandmother explained, was a term used almost exclusively towards native americans, not within the native american community. if it was used, it was a pretty terrible insult.
i have no problems with teams or whatever using native american names or associations (braves, fighting sioux, seminoles, indians, etc.); however, redskin has a different connotation.
nah, i wasn't suggesting anyone was being racist.
Just move the team to Tidewater and rename it. Done.
Tidewater Tunnel Borers?
What's the point?
You just know that when the machines achieve sentience, the "TB-word" will be racist just like everything else. They will wonder what the fuss is about, and continue happily chewing rock while People Doing Important Things picket the Tidewater stadium.
I'm curious krak_t, are you a Redskins fan?
Negative. Really can't stand them.
Or call them the Thoroughbreds and just play with 7 players....
Seeing as how the entire Tidewater area is sinking, I wouldn't put a stadium there unless it could float.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/built-on-sinking-g...
I'm part Cherokee and personally don't care either way. I'm just a fan of Hokies in the pros.
Why the hell would Hokieknightfx2 get downvoted for that comment??
He doesn't care either way....so someone downvotes him? I guess because they didn't want him to have his own personal feelings and be able to express them?
As I am sure I will get downvoted for this also...bear in mind, this is Iron Eyes Cody, who was portrayed in the 1971 ad, "Keep America Beautiful", which was designed to fight against pollution.
"As I am sure I will get downvoted for this also"
Will I get downvoted for this also?
Notice how no one downvoted your image, but they did your useless spam post about maybe getting downvotes? 1 downvote isn't the end of the world. We need to stop this stupid overreaction to 1 or 2 downvotes. Every "Why did this get a downvote?" or a person proudly announcing they downvoted something is useless. If it's not malicious completely out of line the community will regulate it to and balance out people who don't appreciate the humor or what have you.
These types of posts serve as nothing but a catalyst to derail a thread. Yes, I understand the potential irony of this post.
Point taken.
Iron Eyes Cody was Italian. Just sayin'.
http://www.snopes.com/movies/actors/ironeyes.asp
Lol...I wonder if anyone protested that?
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jun/18/curl-is-the-term-redskin...
The online Oxford Dictionary says this: Redskin is first recorded in the late 17th century and was applied to the Algonquian peoples generally, but specifically to the Delaware (who lived in what is now southern New York state and New York City, New Jersey, and eastern Pennsylvania). Redskin referred not to the natural skin color of the Delaware, but to their use of vermilion face paint and body paint.
Smithsonian Institution senior linguist Ives Goddard (who might just be a bit more trustworthy than Mr. Reid) went further, saying in 2005 that the terms genesis was not derogatory. When it first appeared, it came in the most respectful context and at the highest level, Mr. Goddard told The Washington Post. These are white people and Indians talking together, with the white people trying to ingratiate themselves.
But the Oxford goes on to state:
"In time, however, through a process that in linguistics is called pejoration, by which a neutral term acquires an unfavorable connotation or denotation, redskin lost its neutral, accurate descriptive sense and became a term of disparagement. Red man is first recorded in the early 17th century and was originally neutral in tone. Red Indian is first recorded in the early 19th century and was used by the British, far more than by Americans, to distinguish the Indians of the subcontinent from the Indians of the Americas. All three terms are dated or offensive. American Indian and Native American are now the standard umbrella terms. Of course, if it is possible or appropriate, one can also use specific tribal names (Cheyenne, Nez Perc, etc.)."
It is all there in black and white.
One other thing that gets me a little about this. I've said it before on these boards somewhere, but it's the symbol:
As an redskins fan, I'm a little biased. But I think that logo is respectful. As opposed to this:
Which makes me cringe a little. I'd rather see a genuine, proud likeness (at least, that's what I consider the Reskins symbol to be) instead of an over-the-top caricature like the Cleveland logo, regardless of the name.
To be fair, Cleveland is in the process of removing him from all of their apparel right now. It's a quiet campaign that's getting overshadowed by this Redskins thing, but they no longer use Mr. Indian on anything they produce. They're back to the block 'C' which I believe looks poorly on the Redskins. Even without provocation the Indians went ahead and changed a mascot they thought was crossing the line.
I am frightened.
There's also this. Atlanta was about to bring back the screaming brave before the 2013 season. It was revealed and quick backlash prevented the release.
Atlanta is the worst. (Side note, let's go Nats, take 4/4 this weekend)
I wanted this hat so goddamned bad.
So much for that.
FYI - Dan Snyder does own the rights to a logo and the name "The Bravehearts."
No sarcastica.
Its actually his friend, but yes I believe it is worth noting.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/redskins-watch/2013/oct/25/dan-snyde...
At the end of the day...it's a mascot for a football team. Are we really to believe it's paying homage to the Native America history by playing a violet sport and making billions off of it? No...it's a personal fight with Snyder and those who are opposed to it. The team mascot has nothing to do with the team's success, wins, etc.
I wouldn't necessarily call football a violet sport.
You obviously haven't seen the bruises.
This thread somehow turned into this http://theconcourse.deadspin.com/rainbow-cake-recipe-inspires-comment-ap...
so... how long do we freeze the cake for?
That's such a rhetorical question.
If you were a real baker you wouldn't be so rude
Take your Facebook balls somewhere else.
Fart
Of all the ridiculous comments on that article, that one word comment most succintly says everything that needs to be said.
What I love was the OP's reaction to it: "I agree."
Oh you know, look at the picture, freeze the cake, yadda yadda yadda, your entire way of living is a lie and you know it!
Until it's frozen
Somehow reading that made me want pie.
It made me want that ice cream cookie cake pie someone mentioned on another thread.
I posted the response below in the middle of this thread. But I wanted to make a more general point here as well.
In this debate there is room to recognize the existence of very valid points on both sides. There are indeed lots of Americans who in fact are very offended by this term. You can tell them they shouldn't be offended but I don't think that changes much.
There is also a real attachment to a team name and mascot that in some ways may show respect for a common history. Names and traditions are important and recent name changes have been problematic at best.
I am a believer that you can still make the strongest cases when you recognize complexity and ambiguity without dismissing legitimate points of view out of hand. In fact those are the strongest. I am reminded of the thoughtful and respectful conversation on religion in college football here at TKP a few months ago. That was impressive, but this conversation appears to have degenerated into something far less admirable.
Former post:
I think to keep hanging hats on that one data point from a survey with some serious validity questions does the argument a great disservice. Clearly there are many, many, many Native Americans that find the name offensive and many of those are actively fighting to have the name changed.
From the same article:
"Harjo declines to estimate what percentage of native people oppose the name. But she notes that the many organizations supporting her lawsuit include the Cherokee, Comanche, Oneida and Seminole tribes, as well as the National Congress of American Indians, the largest intertribal organization, which represents more than 250 groups with a combined enrollment of 1.2 million."
To marginalize all of these people by continuing to quote that survey as justification for the name is the the kind of structural oppression that still haunts us all today and probably will into the distant future.
Although I havent read every fact and study about this case, I would terribly miss the name Redskins if it had to be changed. If it is true that the word came into existence in a benign way, it would be an absolute shame that the term was used racially at some point in time long enough to hold weight for it to change now.
If that is indeed the case, and this precedent is set, I can only see one viable outcome:
For Hokie Nation to stand up together and let America know how offensive the word Cavalier is. If we persist for awhile, they will have no choice but to change it.
I think it already is used as a pejorative term. At least, that's the connotation for me.
According to Wikipedia (sources!) it was first used as a derogatory term:
"It first appears as a term of reproach and contempt, applied to the followers of King Charles I in June 1642"
Later in the entry it goes on to say:
"Cavalier was not understood at the time as primarily a term describing a style of dress, but a whole political and social attitude. However, in modern times the word has become more particularly associated with the court fashions of the period, which included long flowing hair in ringlets, brightly coloured with elaborate trimmings and lace collars and cuffs, and plumed hats."
That is just so YouVa. Nothing says intimidating sports team like flowing ringlets and lace.
I know this is sarcasm but could you imagine if they changed their name to something actually badass and not a douchey pirate? That would totally not fit. This is the same for people saying LOLUVA should fire Mike London, to whom I say "NO!" leave TimeCop there to continually run the douchey pirates to even lower levels of suckassery
http://www.cbssports.com/mlb/eye-on-baseball/24597118/native-american-gr...
Well, the Indians are now gonna face a lawsuit over their Chief Wahoo logo. FOR $9 BILLION! I can understand potentially being offended by various things, but I dunno if $9 billion is exactly the proper amount haha
So, if they change the name we can't call them "deadskins" anymore when they're having a shitty season?
If you want a laugh, check out this upcoming South Park.
Got to hand it to Matt & Trey, they certainly don't miss an opportunity:
This. Is. Awesome.
I love that show.
Reductive. And well past the point where it's a fresh issue anyone's mind. A few activists got their 15 minutes on what was and is once again a non issue, and South Park is jumping on board late with an insipidly shallow interpretation of events. #GoComedyCentral
Edited to add:
Now that Joe has adjusted the Turkey-leg algorithm, I'd ask that those that continue to downvote OPINIONS maybe refresh their understanding of the Community Guidelines.
I'm sick and tired of losing legs for stating an opinion. This topic alone has garnered me and others on both sides of the issue countless down-legs for opinions and for reasoned arguments. They were down-voted not because they crossed any community line, but because people just didn't like the content of the comment.
I've given one down-leg on this topic, for a post that was clearly over the line (and I see now was deleted by the author).
I've resisted the urge to play that game that makes so many other sites a cesspool of sniping and back-biting.
I'd urge everyone else to do the same and encourage everyone to engage the people they disagree with on the merits of the arguments given, or just refrain from interacting on those subjects altogether.
EDITED part 2:
Just for kicks, I counted them up. I lost 46 legs on this topic for what are, by and large, detailed arguments in support of my opinion, and none of which crossed any lines other than those in the minds of the down-voters.
A bunch of others lost a lot as well, on both sides. So again, please follow the posted guidelines. Or at least own your down-votes so we can know who you are and have the reasoning for your judgment, and to hopefully short-circuit the sort of indiscriminate and scattershot down-voting that occurred here from happening in the future.
That's 45 seconds worth of a single joke from a 22 minute episode. Late to the party? Yes, but the season doesn't start for 3 more days. I'd be willing to bet that the episode with that joke in it has plenty of other NFL-related material that is a whole lot fresher on everyone's mind.
Well, I was speaking only to that 45 second joke, so I'd say my point stands.
Oh, it certainly does. But I don't think the show is trying to rehash and proselytize on the issue. They just went for an easy joke that most people will get. I am staunchly against any name change, but I still think it's funny, and does a pretty good job of lampooning Dan Snyder's handling of the issue. Don't see it as South Park saying the name needs changed, see it as South Park pointing out the flawed logic used to defend the name.
I'm not going to re-argue the topic. I'd just say that I strongly disagree that SP's representation of Dan Snyder's position (and by extension, mine upthread) is accurate. For those interested, they can slog through all the endless posts up-thread for all the documented reasoning.
I'd also say I am disappointed in being asked to defend what the opposing side insists my argument must be, rather than the argument I have made.
I am sure Dan Snyder is as well.
Sniping at this after the fact in popular culture cements as "common knowledge" the mischaracterization of Snyder's position, ignores the weaknesses of the opposing position, and reduces the whole topic to "Racist idiots BAD, PC smarties Good", as if that is the only possible or even probable players in it all.
It's not saying the name is or is not racist or needs to change. The point is that SOME people think it is offensive, and Dan Snyder tries to argue that it's not offensive. But "offensive" is an entirely dynamic, subjective concept. The name can be offensive while not being inherently bad. Some people just get offended easily. Dan Snyder has consistently botched how he addresses the issue, making it all the more difficult for guys like you and I to defend the Redskins brand in conversations such as those in this thread.
Exactly. Trying to tell someone that their feelings are invalid is really insulting and disrespectful. You might think someone is overally sensitive or disagree over an issue but you cannot invalidate someone's feelings. Try telling your significant other that their feelings don't matter and see what it gets you.
We don't always get our way in life and have to deal with disappointment but people's feelings are never wrong. Invalidating someone's feelings is like invalidating the person. Whether you hold a majority view or are in the minority everyone matters. Think about the times when you may have held the minority view on an issue. Does it feel good to be invalidated? If you are in the majority or a position of power is it right to bully others?
(I keep promising myself I'm going to stop defending myself on this thread. I'm a glutton for punishment, obviously.)
I'm sure that's not at all what I tried to do. I am absolutely positive that "feelings" didn't enter into my comment at all. And I didn't address a single soul on TKP in my comment. So I'm unsure why so many people took so much offense at it. I could speculate, but it wouldn't be appropriate to divine someone's intent.
Your entire comment suggests that the only thing that matters in a debate is how someone feels about the topic.
I'm pretty sure you're wrong. I'm truly sorry if that offends you.
This latest sideshow to the overall topic is based on my short comment critiquing South Park's entry into the debate wherein they reduce one entire side of the debate to the most simplistic and ignorant and, yes, insulting, caricature they could devise. People here seem to be upset and taking offense by proxy. This speaks not to anything I have done, or even South Park has done. So I'd suggest to anyone who feels hurt by my original comment to try to figure out why they feel hurt, and whether they have any control over, or responsibility for, their own feelings.
It never feels good to feel invalidated. Luckily we can combat this by embracing an attitude to not simply take offense whenever someone stakes an opposing view to our own, and to not take it personally when someone critiques a show we like.
You're falling into the same trap that Dan Snyder is falling into. Just because you're not intending for there to be any insult or you're not intending for anyone to be insulted with what you say does not mean that people are wrong if and when they do they're opinion is invalidated because that wasn't your intent.
Sometimes you have to try to understand the opposing viewpoint. I have rarely seen those who staunchly defend the team's name even attempt at understanding the opponent's viewpoint is, and instead, work entirely on trying to invalidate the opinions themselves.
So: It doesn't appear to matter what I say or how I say it, simply the act of defending a counter-position to a bit of activism that is predicated on the proposition that some party is claiming offense, is itself offensive.
I reject the suggestion that I or others haven't tried to understand the opposing viewpoint. Indeed, I have worked hard to find evidence supporting the opposing viewpoint, and found the evidence is clearly on my side of the debate.
If this were simply about opinions, then yeah, you might have a point.
But this is about whether or not a term is racist, both in its genesis and its usage. This should not be a matter of opinion, it should be a matter of fact, for all the reasons and examples I gave upthread. Indeed, the opposing side of this debate consistently makes claims as a matter of fact on both genesis and usage, and takes offense at the mere request to "prove it please".
But here we are, me arguing evidence, me arguing that people should objectively consider the evidence contrary to their position, and instead of getting substantive responses, getting accused of offending other people for defending my position.
And now, getting accused of offending people here for a critique on a South Park bit.
So let me put this back to everyone that is offended. Help me out:
How can I disagree with you in a way that is not offensive? And please, please, please, if you choose to answer this, please make your solution for my comportment be in accordance with the behavior from your side of the issue. I would hate to see a double-standard being suggested.
Don't want to get too involved here but even if a term isn't originally intended to be racist doesn't mean it can't become racist. Here in an article refuting some of the "facts" on the poorly conceived "redskinsfacts.com"
" It is true, as Slate pointed out last year, that according to Goddards research the word originated with and was used by Native Americans to differentiate themselves from whites. But historical documents have shown that by the second half of the 19th century, whites had co-opted the term and began using it in a derogatory manner, including in bounty notices calling for the killing of Native Americans. One such notice appeared in the September 24, 1863 edition of the Winona (MN) Daily Republican. It read..."
http://thinkprogress.org/sports/2014/07/30/3465830/misleading-facts-on-r...
Then, given the comparison between this and use of the n word, by the same logic, because a large portion of blacks use that term simply to address each other, a term that began as extremely racist has been co-opted to be acceptable in everyday use. Clearly that is not the case, nor am I advocating broad use of the term. One must look at the intent behind each individual use of a term, rather than inferring that it is always disparaging. If Jay-Z says the n-word 50 times in a song, there's nothing wrong with that. If I say the n word once, there's quite a bit wrong with that. The same may be said for the Redskins. If a person says "Go Redskins" in support of a football team, there's nothing wrong with that, whereas if a person uses the term to disparage certain residents of Oklahoma, there is everything wrong with that.
Woah, thats quite the leap in logic... You're comparing apples to oranges right now.
A more appropriate comparison would be someone of Native American descent using the r-word, just like Jay-Z can use the n-word.
By your comparison, saying "Go R-s" would be akin to saying "Go N-s". One will never be the nickname of a sports team, the other shouldn't be anymore.
not signalling tb42 out but this all literally the same discussion we had 3 months ago on this very same thread. It's an interesting topic but if there's no new discussion to be had then perhaps it's time to ....
So first, you don't want us bringing up years old topics in a new thread, because we're supposed to use the old topics and now that people are using the old topics to continue a discussion they might not have been a part of in the first place (and even if they were, who gives a crap) you want them to just not have the conversation because its 'already been discussed'?
Huh?
Not everyone is on this place 24/7. Its EXTREMELY insulting to tell anyone that their opinions don't matter because they weren't around when the topic was initially discussed. Thats the kind of elitism that erodes a community, and the kind of attitude we don't need on TKP.
you need to dial back the 5 hour energy dude.
a) Use old threads.
My point in that comment was that particular post was simply a rant post and did not need to be a new forum post and that there was already discussion on paper airplanes, most of which was pretty much regurgitated in that new post. So why not use the tracker to see if that topic has come up before and if it had add to the conversation that is already been made. That is what the tracker is there for, is it not?
b) this thread
you all are having the very same discussion. why can't I point that out? I am happy to read new discussions on this topic so is it really so bad to show people who are new to the conversation that these points have been made? answer: No. Does it really insult you that someone point out something that has been stated previously?
c) you need to chillax
your comment that I am "EXTREMELY insulting" to people not on here 24/7 is seriously hyperbolic dude. I am not being insulting to anyone. In fact I specifically said I am not signalling out that comment. There is nothing elitist about that at all. My comment was written properly and had zero malice in it. that's all an over embellished accusation. Just as I didn't "blast" you on your game day thread comment, I am not insulting anyone here.
I guess I just have a different viewpoint about what constitutes the break off point to when a topic cannot be brought up again. This thread had fallen off the Tracker for 3 months now. If anything, I'm impressed that it was dredged up instead of someone just starting a new thread.
If you're talking about not having the exact same conversation that happened earlier in the day or even last week, that's one thing, but if you're talking about telling someone to cut it out with a convo that happened last quarter, in the middle of summer? I dunno, I just think that does a disservice to the community. Having healthy conversations is a good thing. Keeping them contained in the same place, if its about the same topic, is a good thing. Asking people to 'let it go' because those who came before already had this convo... I don't personally see that as a good thing. It is indicative of a 'us vs you' mentality, and I don't see that as being healthy to this community.
again I specifically stated I was not signalling out that comment. the reason I replied to that specific one was because it was very similar to my comment up-thread. In fact I gave a turkey leg for that comment because I agree with it.
to be perfectly honest, my comment to "let it go" was directed at you and krak. You're having the same debate over again and neither of you are making any new points of discussion. both of you are on the edge of exasperation with each other and frankly calling each other insulting and demeaning back and forth because both of you believe that the other is avoiding the "points" you are making. just as you did before 3 months ago.
So when you say the comment I highlighted just now, it really makes me wonder if you shouldn't take your own advice and recognize that it's not good for the community.
again, time to dial it back and chill.
finally, I have never said bringing up a topic again is off limits. What I have repeatedly said is that perhaps taking a moment to see what this great community has contributed to a subject might be a better course of action, because you can add to an already established and wonderful discourse, rather than simply regurgitating it over again. I am fairly certain that it would be a better use of server space and Joe's hard earned money to focus our comments on adding to the discussion. Don't you?
I'm with you on the boob grabbing part, but then I got distracted... what was the point of this again??
There was a debate currently going on and I felt that was pertinent info, I don't normally like to get involved in these discussions but someone was demanding info or facts so I posted the counter argument. If it was posted earlier in the thread others didn't bother to read it again either because that point was being ignored (not willfully) but it was a valid article to post in response to another person.
I complete agree with your post and gave its deserving turkey leg. I should have responded directly to krak or alum07 comments, but you and I really had similar posts which spurred my thought process on the whole thing.
apologies if my comment came off differently for you.
Thats pretty thoroughly insulting to anyone who legitimately has an issue with the this team continuing the use of a well documented racist term.
South Park is calling them out on the bull. Some would say its great that they're continuing to keep this in the news, because it deserves to be there as a truly controversial situation.
And this is A: taking offense where clearly none is intended and B: ignoring the raft of documented evidence presented up-thread.
Look. I'm done with this.
I've suffered yet another DV, and I'm sure more to come, from people who use it as a penalty for not agreeing with their personal ideology.
Enjoy your echo-chamber.
Lesson here is, for now, on TKP, don't offer an objective opinion that may run counter to Political Correctness.
No, there was definitely offense there to be taken.
That right there is a statement where you're putting your own opinion on a higher moral ground than those who disagree with you. You're saying that the whole disdain for the name is some PC activist agenda that is a flash in the pan and will go away shortly because nobody truly cares.
That couldn't be further from the truth.
This is a controversy that has been bubbling for years now. This isn't some protest of the moment, this is a controversy that is here to stay. Right now, people aren't focusing on it, because the NFL has a bunch of other forest fires they're dealing with for the time being, but that doesn't mean it's been forgotten.
South Park isn't dredging this up just to keep it in the news. They're using it as legitimate social commentary and using it in a way that shows the complete absurdity of the situation. This is a story that isn't going to go away until the team name changes. There's way too much momentum right now, and with everything else the NFL has going against it, don't be surprised if the league finally mandates a name change, just to take the attention away from everything else.
Alum:
You claim as certainty things which are not.
You implied evidence which you failed to provide.
You ignored evidence counter to your claims.
And worst of all, your position on this matter by your own terms doesn't seem to allow for a counter-argument that could possibly be construed by yourself and some others as inoffensive.
My statement was in reference to a South Park commentary. Your initial offense seemed to be that I critiqued it at all, and held the arguments presented thus far in rather low regard. Given the contempt you regularly show for poorly made arguments, I would think this sort of attitude wouldn't give you pause.
Your clarification of my offense was my use of describing a distinct minority of a minority and its activist instigators outside of that minority as "a few". To find offense in so vanilla a generalization implies a sensitivity that will not countenance any disagreement. You don't get to define my intent, no matter how much you might like.
You can insist things are so until you are blue in the face. This is simply a waste of time. I am confident that the explanations of my side of the debate stand exceedingly well, and at the very least, show this issue is not nearly as clear-cut as you would claim.
I'll leave one more though experiment for everyone so quick to claim racism.
If this term, which has been pretty definitively shown to have been created by Native Americans as a description of their own group of peoples, and a word that the historically the vast majority has seen as a proud signifier, is racist, why is "Native American", a term created by White Men to describe a group of peoples, not racist?
I have given many arguments up thread describing the inherent logical conundrums in the bandwagon interpreting of heretofore non-pejorative words as some new bigotry verbalized, and therefore making them verboten. It would be worth re-reading those and considering what words you currently love to use (words like Oklahoma, for instance) may in the future be used as proof of your own bigotry.
Perhaps if your side had bothered to respond to any of the evidence presented, I may have been convinced. Perhaps if, instead of downvotes for what I assume was a wholesome battle against the tyrant-bigot that is krak_t, I had been engaged on substance, we might have had a more clarifying debate. Instead, the most substantial and even-tempered exchange to be had was with someone on the pro-Redskins side of the issue.
Eh, I upvoted your last post. Serial downvotes look like they're here to stay.
Let's all remember that in the intro to South Park, the following is stated for the record:
Parker and Stone are gonna tell the story they want to tell in the way they want to tell it. I love SP because it makes me laugh...a lot. But there's only so much you can take from it.
I'm willing to wager that there is more to this South Park's message then what we can jump to conclude from this short clip. South Park is pretty good at taking current events and making a mockery of both sides of the debate to show us how stupid every thing is to begin with. In the end, they just want everyone to laugh regardless of their position.
Am I reading correctly that some people are taking issue with South Park's timing of this?
It's the first new South Park episode since last December. I'm sure if they were scheduled to have new episodes during the summer, they would have done it then.
They should have changed the TV schedule for this. It's their fault.
You're not.
I haven't the chance to read the entire post here but for what it is worth here are my thoughts:
factual research has been done that proves the name never intended to be racist, simply an identifying term to a people group that the Washington team has tried to honor. This is reflected in the designing of the logo (by Native Americans). That being said the name was chosen, logo chosen, with no intention to offend yet it has that power. If they have to change the name, why even give the team a moniker or mascot only to risk having it become offensive in 80 years and being forced to change again.
Just go with washington dc football club and end all controversy. I hate it because I don't want them to change the name but it will happen and it looks worse to go kicking and screaming...the team has enough controversy as it is and this could be a fresh start. my $0.02
What if I find "Washington" offensive?
Then you should vote Republican.
EDIT: This is a joke and should be read as such.
The only thing that will make this thread more divisive is talking politics. Leave that out of here, please.
Apologies. PoliSci grad simply making a joke. Election year, minority party wants to come across as being against things going on in the capital, ergo Republicans would find Washington to be "offensive." Probably could've conveyed it better.
Humor at the expense of the political system I can support. Just a divisive thread that I hoped would die...the potential for more flaming and arguing is just bad news. Leg for the context.
Now I read it as voting Republican is a joke. Just giving you a hard time, legged to cancel it out.
Are you British?
Quote from movie Lincoln:
Washington DC FC? Just don't confuse them with these guys: http://www.clubwebsite.co.uk/washingtonfootballclub/
Obviously it would need some thought. A fellow TKPer, who is half Oneida really likes the logo, which as I stated was designed by Native Americans and is hardly the focus of the argument against the name. I wouldn't mind a change to braves or warriors. My thought on Wash. DCFC was more of a hard-feelings reaction. Other names in the NFL can be construed as offensive but this one is racial so it takes focus. If we named our team the pansies and then in 80 years pansies was some derogatory term referring to some people group etc., then will they have to change it? That is the part of this I don't like. Are people offended by it? Yes. Can I understand why? absolutely. Should the change it? Doesn't matter, whether it's this year or in a decade they are going to have to. It is inevitable and Dan Snyder drawing it out like this is only going to make the franchise more and more disliked by the entire nation that is being fed over-politicized info from the media. The mature thing for Dan to do at this point is to invest money with nike and try to keep the colors, the logo, and rebrand the team and do a freaking awesome job.. SO that when fans are pissed by the name change they also don't get sucker punched with ugly uniforms.
My vote is go with Braves, it was the original name.
As a lifelong Redskins fan who is some mix of Irish, Polish, and German, I love the logo but my initial reaction to the 'Braves' is that it is the name of a baseball team. Not that names haven't been shared in the past, but I'd like Warriors more. You're right, the Boston Braves was the original name. But...meh. For the rest of my life, I will probably say that I am a fan of the Washington Redskins. Not out of protest for changing the name, just because it's ingrained in me.
And I'm stubborn. The mules around the barn are rubbing off on me.
EDIT: While I'm at it, they might as well just take a cue from the software industry and open source the name, logo, colors, etc. See what falls out. The NFL might not like it but at this point, what is there to lose, eh?
Washington Sunburns.
They even changed the QB from Griffin to Cousins for this laugh riot of episode, hahahaha!
And the real audio from Goodell's press conference, plus the recreation of the elevator scene. Great hustle on this episode. They might have even put the right score quote in: "we only lost to the Eagles by three."
All I have to say is, Jesus some of you are taking South Park (and downvotes, for that matter) way too seriously. Just have fun with it. It was hilarious.
That episode was awesome. Everyone is talking about the Redskins angle but they also nailed the crappy companies on Kickstarter thing too
Note: Given that this thread's senstivity level is at defcon 5, I should mention I am a huge fan of Kickstarter and do not think ALL companies on there are crappy. But a lot of crappy companies try to go to Kickstarter for funding.
The Jerry Jones character was pretty funny
I didn't think the episode was that funny until the Jerry Jones "Hey, my eyes aren't that far apart" scene. I absolutely lost it on that one.
And the Daily Show had their take on the situation last night
The Daily ShowGet More: Daily Show Full Episodes,The Daily Show on Facebook,Daily Show Video Archive
Bad press for the Daily Show re their Redskins ambush.
So Comedy Central sprung a debate on some fairly low-information fans against activists armed with talking points & cheap shots. Because, calling fans of a team racist and stupid is funny. It's Comedy, yo!
So they would've modified their attire to be less offensive? Smacks of people who know they're in the wrong and are just upset they didn't get a chance to mentally prepare to be confronted with their guilty feelings in advance.
He was saying that if they had not been ambushed, they wouldn't have done everything as the producers instructed, which was to make them appear as in-your-face as possible.
Here is an interesting first-hand account by one of the Native-American panelists from The Daily Show segment.
http://m.bigskypress.com/GreenRoom/archives/2014/09/26/ill-fucking-cut-y...
Another video showing Native-Americans weighing in on the topic.
FCC is seriously considering a ban on the team name, which would include fining any broadcast station or network that utters it on air.
http://variety.com/2014/tv/news/redskins-ban-fcc-1201317855/
Things like this make me proud to be an American.
hint: The previous statement was sarcasm.
This is approaching the level of beyond absurdity.
If that goes through, I'd love to see the case develop when someone airs an ad for a certain kind of potato.
You mean Native American potatoes?
Just approaching?