WP:Drop ‘Redskins’ name? Time to take a stand. (By Robert McCartney)

[stevemcqueen1]

I think you couldn't be more wrong on this and are basing your thoughts solely off an assumption that benefits your POV.

I have said in this thread, and others agreed, that if it was clear that the majority of NA folk thought the redskin term was derogatory that we would all, or most of us anyway, support a name change and that in all likelihood the name would have already been changed.

I think deep down people who aren't NA and claim the term is offensive due so out of misplaced guilt and fear from the PC crowd as being labeled racist; either that or they too only loom at the issue surface deep and see "skin" and assume it is racist.

Meh, I think you're lying to yourself and convincing yourself that Redskins isn't a derogatory term with specious arguments despite the fact that it's obviously a derogatory term. I think the rest of the world outside of the fan base sees it as an obviously derogatory term.

[elkabong82]

Hey, I admit it. I don't want to be seen as racist for rooting for my favorite football team. I don't feel guilty, nor do I think that my feeling is particularly misplaced given all those dictionary definitions to which I referred.

The PC Crowd Boogyman" is really big in this thread, but I'm not worried about what one kid majoring in ethnic outrage at UC Santa Cruz thinks. I'm more concerned that, in reality and common usage, our team name is an anachronism and kind of offensive. Maybe not so offensive that the entire world is about to rise up and strike us down in anger, but kind of offensive nonetheless.

Trust me, I don't want to be viewed as racist by folks, nor likely do most of us. We all share that fear, just as most of us do view other races as equal people since they are.

I think society is still finding itself with race and culture though. Indians was an offensive term for NAs for a bit, as was black for African Americans, but both are coming back now, even though one was a misplaced geographical term and the other is an identifier based solely on skin color.

I clearly see WHY Redskin is thought by some to be offensive, but I don't agree with it and I have what I believe is strong reasoning behind it. "Colored," the n word, oriental, yellow, have all had the majority of offended groups voice their displeasure over it and did not themselves create the terms. Redskin, however, was created by NA folks, was not a commonly used derogatory term, hence you aren't likely to find a lot of primary sources depicting such like you will with savage, and the majority of NA folk accept and even endorse the name. I see a name that touches on an issue with skin color in this country, but that is being misidentified as belonging with other offensive terms based off assumption.

---------- Post added February-7th-2013 at 06:03 PM ----------

Meh, I think you're lying to yourself and convincing yourself that Redskins isn't a derogatory term with specious arguments despite the fact that it's obviously a derogatory term. I think the rest of the world outside of the fan base sees it as an obviously derogatory term.

Then I think you should address the actual specifics of my argument and the specifics that others have argued with you as well since you're making sweeping statements about those arguments and my position on the matter.

I think the majority of Native Americans DON'T see it as derogatory and I think their opinion carries more weight than anyone else on this matter.

[Predicto]

No, they don't. Not one of them.

"All the dictionaries reflect" that if you ignore 99% of the world, then your point is valid.

Unfortunately, 99% of the world does, in fact, exist.

It doesn't exist in dictionaries.



Ah, so your point is "I wanted to restrict my point so that it only refers to one possible use (out of multiple uses)?

Thank you for making my point.



And that world has proper nouns in it. Yes, if we all lived in the dictionary, where the word "smith" only refers to someone's profession, and not his name, then you'd have a great point.

But the world I live in, "smith" most commonly refers to someone's last name.

But yes, you've made your point like 30 times now. If you go through the world and remove all references to football teams and potatoes, then the word "redskin" (with a small "r" is offensive.

There are many angels on this pin now Larry. The pin still has the word Redskin sitting right smack atop a Native American logo.

Everyone understands that referring to the Washington Redskins American Football Team founded in the year 1932 by George Preston Marshall is not the same as slurring a Native American by saying "hey, Redskin, come here!" In modern times, the overwhelming use of the eight letters "r-e-d-s-k-i-n-s" in a certain sequence is to refer to the professional football team of that name. We all get that.

Theoretically, the exact same argument could be made if the name was the Washington Anythings. It doesn't resolve the question of whether an anachronistic name should be retired.

---------- Post added February-7th-2013 at 05:11 PM ----------

Trust me, I don't want to be viewed as racist by folks, nor likely do most of us. We all share that fear, just as most of us do view other races as equal people since they are.

I think society is still finding itself with race and culture though. Indians was an offensive term for NAs for a bit, as was black for African Americans, but both are coming back now, even though one was a misplaced geographical term and the other is an identifier based solely on skin color.

I clearly see WHY Redskin is thought by some to be offensive, but I don't agree with it and I have what I believe is strong reasoning behind it. "Colored," the n word, oriental, yellow, have all had the majority of offended groups voice their displeasure over it and did not themselves create the terms. Redskin, however, was created by NA folks, was not a commonly used derogatory term, hence you aren't likely to find a lot of primary sources depicting such like you will with savage, and the majority of NA folk accept and even endorse the name. I see a name that touches on an issue with skin color in this country, but that is being misidentified as belonging with other offensive terms based off assumption.

I think all these arguments can be made, from an intellectual point of view. I don't think they are worth making. I don't see this as a fight worth fighting. I think we should accept the reality of the times, same as with the word "colored."

[stevemcqueen1]

You missed a word in my post: "viewed." We all acknowledge that it is viewed by some as offensive, and we are arguing that such a view is incorrect.

People, including me, are arguing that it isn't offensive, and we acknowledge while doing so that there are others who VIEW the term as offensive.

Does that clear it up for you?

LARRY: "viewed," as in, some VIEW it as offensive. If you've been reading through this thread then you know we are on the same side on this issue.

Take the time to read and fully understand a post people

What's the difference between something being "viewed as offensive" and something being offensive?

Doesn't the quality of being offensive come from the external person, entity, hivemind, etc. that finds it offensive? Can something be offensive in and of itself? If I shout the "N Word" in the total vacuum of space, does it still count as offensive?

I understand your argument perfectly well. I also understand the motivation behind it because I've been there before, wrestling with it all in my head, trying to find a way around the inconsistency of my position. It's an attempt at meaningless hair splitting to get around the fact the name is obviously an offensive term. It's perhaps viewed as offensive, but that's not the same as it being offensive (though I can't really say how). It's not really offensive (because I say it's not intended to be offensive).

It's basically tantamount to telling offended people they are not allowed to be offended by what they find offensive.

[Larry]

The PC Crowd Boogyman" is really big in this thread,

I think it was mentioned once.

Yeah, it's huge.

but I'm not worried about what one kid majoring in ethnic outrage at UC Santa Cruz thinks.

Nor are you apparently concerned with what 90% of Native Americans think.

I'm more concerned that, in reality and common usage, our team name is an anachronism and kind of offensive.

It is neither.

"If you pretend that the anachronism and offensive usage is the totality of usage" is not common usage. No matter how many times you try to pretend that the vast, overwhelming, majority of usage doesn't exist.

I suggested that you use Google, as an attempt to judge common usage. (Funny, you ignored that suggestion, and kept playing "let's move this discussion into a Universe where that usage doesn't exist".) So I decided to do the test myself.

Google search on "redskin". (I intentionally chose to use the singular, knowing that it would tilt the results away from the team name, which is a plural.) The first 101 hits are listed. (I have no idea why Google sometimes lists 10 results per page, sometimes 11.) Here's what I found: (In descending order. Ties are listed according to which one I hit first.)

87 hits relating to the football team.
3 hits relating to medical conditions. ("red skin")
3 dictionary entries.
2 articles about the football team's name.
2 other proper names. (A bowling alley and a wrestling team)
1 IMDB article about a film "Redskins" made in 1929.
1 Wiki disambiguation page (Click here for the football team, here for the subculture, here for the)
1 Wiki subculture page, explaining that in skinhead subculture, the term "redskin" refers to a communist or socialist skinhead.

Know what I notice? Not one of those hits, is the thing that you're desperately trying to claim is "in reality and common usage".

Not one.

---------- Post added February-7th-2013 at 06:24 PM ----------

There are many angels on this pin now Larry.

The condescension might go over better if you hadn't been spending the last four pages trying desperately to pretend that the majority of the world doesn't exist.

I'm getting sick of it. Drop it.

[elkabong82]

What's the difference between something being "viewed as offensive" and something being offensive?

Doesn't the quality of being offensive come from the external person, entity, hivemind, etc. that finds it offensive? Can something be offensive in and of itself? If I shout the "N Word" in the total vacuum of space, does it still count as offensive?

I understand your argument perfectly well. I also understand the motivation behind it because I've been there before, wrestling with it all in my head, trying to find a way around the inconsistency of my position. It's an attempt at meaningless hair splitting to get around the fact the name is obviously an offensive term. It's perhaps viewed as offensive, but that's not the same as it being offensive (though I can't really say how). It's not really offensive (because I say it's not intended to be offensive).

It's basically tantamount to telling offended people they are not allowed to be offended by what they find offensive.

Really? You don't understand the difference between "viewed as " and is?"

A perspective is not always fact and you are grossly misunderstanding the context in which I used "view" and trying to base a philosophical argument off of that. Really, I'd say the quality of offensiveness is based on whether or not the group such a term is in reference to is indeed offended by it, as well as the intent behind the usage of that term.

I said that nobody in here was arguing that there aren't people who VIEW the term Redskins as offensive, but that we were arguing using facts to show that such a VIEW is incorrect.

The name is only "obviously" offensive to those who refuse to see the name's origin and instead nod their heads along with the overreactions of our culture's PC nature to automatically assume that because there is color and skin in the name that it has to be racist. As I've said in here, it is a false assumption. The name was created by NA folk, and is not viewed as offensive by the majority of NA folk, so therefor it is not derogatory, regardless of the confusion caused by assumptions from the PC crowd.

What you and others are doing is trying to tell NA folk that they should be offended by something they aren't offended by, and you don't have the right nor justification to do so. If the majority were in fact offended, this issue would be an open and shut case for most of us.

[FanboyOf91]

Letting PC trolls win doesn't stop the PC trolling.

Don't give in to PC trolls, kids.

[Larry]

deleted post.

[Predicto]

Well, I'm just a PC troll now. Oh well.

[Jumbo]

I suggested to Dan we quit screwing around and change it to The Washington Jumbos.

[grego]

It's an attempt at meaningless hair splitting to get around the fact the name is obviously an offensive term.

e.

I don't understand how someone could know that most native Americans not only don't find it offensive but at least one Native American high school uses the name as its mascot , yet hold to your position that its "obviously" a racist term.

Ponderous, man. Freaking ponderous.

You may as well have said the moon is made of Swiss cheese. It would have made more sense.

[daveakl]

I suggested to Dan we quit screwing around and change it to The Washington Jumbos.

Have you seen those ears? More like Dumbo. (sorry, one of my kids fav movies)

[Larry]

I suggested to Dan we quit screwing around and change it to The Washington Jumbos.

Nah, we're more of a speed team than a size team, these days.

[elkabong82]

I suggested to Dan we quit screwing around and change it to The Washington Jumbos.

If the team reflected your typical posts then they would have 30 play drives

[Tweedr01]

There are at least 10 posters in this thread who are waving around the "political correctness is killing us we have to take a stand" banner. He's just one of them.

Is this really where we need to take a stand? Our god given right to call our team the Redskins? I just don't get it. Is this the hill to die on to save the world from runaway sensitivity to other people's feelings?

And for the record, I mention how long I have been a proud fan of this team to demonstrate that I'm not coming to this question from the outside. I'm a huge Redskins fan and will be for life - even if the name gets changed to something less controversial.

I mean, people take a stand with things they find important, just because his stance is different from yours doesn't make his any less important. You claim he's making a stand against being PC, but you are making a stand to be PC, I'd pose the same question to you.

I do understand the context of explaining your history of fandom, but you do it by belittling someone else's fandom because of his age. I'm younger than him and I'd argue I'm a bigger fan than both of you. I of course say this expecting you to argue that, what kind of fan would you be if you didn't?