Two Minute Commericial Anti-"Redskins" Tonight

[Nadine]

I think part of the potential issue is that, as more and more words and sayings get added to the blacklist, we will have homogenized society as a whole, and everyone will be the same, nothing will be interesting. Of course that's playing to the extreme, but there are a lot of terms that aren't acceptable anymore that many people never found offensive. What happened is that a vocal group of people made a fuss, and everyone gave in. Not arguing that people should continue using words that are offensive, even to a small group of people. But I do think some of the societal correction can be petty. All it takes for something to be considered offensive is for someone to be offended loud enough.

 

In the case of "redskins," I think I get why it's considered offensive. Like the Washington fan in this thread said, the issue could have been handled better by the team's PR unit and by Daniel Snyder himself. He's come off as standoffish and insensitive, and that's by his own doing. But it is absolutely true that some Native American groups support the name, so this is far from an open and shut case. I don't have a strong opinion on it, one way or the other, but in the long run, I don't see this helping the team. I think, eventually, they're going to be pressured to change the name. And that being the case, they could have taken the long view several years ago, before this became so controversial, and been proactive about it. The way it's going, Snyder will be known as being on the wrong side of this issue.

 

I really agree with bolded, that is an undesirable outcome of all this. Native Americans should not be homongenized away and I think that is the risk.

 

Most of the world and many Americans see our country as not having a 'culture' because we are young and unlike other cultures.  But we absolutely do and should protect what is uniquely American and that is our diversity.  It is who we are.

 

But, I think that this will continue to be a circular argument.  People will take offense because they see the name as racist and others will take offense when they are told essentially that if they don't want to change the name, they are racists........when that is not the case.

 

nobody wants to be called racist, it makes people angry and rightly so

 

Because this is an NFL team, it is very visible and so a very desireable target for anyone wanting visibility.

 

This will not go away

Best to change the name & move on.

[Valpo2004]

 

Ok this is just over the top.

 

First of all you are ignoring the fact that most of the drop in Native populations was due to disease brought over from Europe long before the United States even became a thing.

 

Please don't forget that American Indians were sold blankets laden with smallpox in them designed to annihilate tribes quickly courtesy of own federal government. 

 

Then you are ignoring further that genocide being a crime of intent there was a severe lack of intent to call it genocide.  That doesn't make it right or good.  But what was done to the Native population is nothing like the wholesale slaughter of 13 million Jews.  Most deaths were do to disease and forced relocation.  No forced relocation isn't a good thing, but it's not the same as outright killing someone. 

 

"wholesale slaughter of 13 million Jews? I have no idea how to even interpret that statement. Was that intended to be humorous? Relocating a native population is always done with a malicious intent. You rob a culture of their surroundings, you force them to speak a different language, you cut their hair, & you systematically engrain this population with the idea that they are subhuman & need to re-programmed by another nation who will rid you of your falsely percieved backward ways. NAZI's may have practiced instant extermination but the US government's treatment of American Indians was just as deadly don't kid yourself. 

 

Agree with you every bit about how we as a country seem to ignore it.  Which is why I can not understand the South's continued use of the confederate battle flag or this name.

 

We are not a racist or sexist society as a whole.  Does racism and sexism still exist. . . yes it does at varying levels.  For most people it is simple stereotypes.  But stereotypes get applied to everyone not just women and minorities.  

 

I like to believe that people are genuinely good, but racism will never die. It only goes further underground waiting for the right moment to rear it's ugly head. 

 

Race and sex don't limit people in this country nearly as much money or the lack thereof does.

 

The idea that women are second class citizens is quite frankly laughable.  Last I checked they didn't have to, by law place their life at risk at the demands of the state in order to get the right to vote or receive financial aid to go to college.  

 

Are women paid the same as men for the same work as their male counterpart in the same profession with the same level of experience? Nope. Are men who run for President ever asked if they would fail to handle a crisis at a certain time of the month? Nope. I respect women & their intellect, but sadly this world is very sexist who treats that gender as second class citizens & I always stand up for equality among women. 

 

Your political slant is really clouding your judgement and hurting this cause IMO.  

 

I  didn't see Bogie's statement as a political slant at all. Until the American Indian community chimes in on this NFL name controversy, I can't read the tea leafs or see which direction the wind is really blowing here. Synder won't move here until the NFL Commission gives Dan a sweetheart financial deal to make it worth his while to change the name. Money talks & for the right price Dan will play ball. 

 

 

 

 

Regarding the underlined.  

 

First of all do you realize that when you account for differences in hours worked and types of careers the difference is 5%??

 

Would you take a 20 times higher risk of dying at work for a 5.25% raise.  That is the difference between work for men and women when you break it down.  

 

Secondly no serious political commentator asks a woman that question.  Some people ask it as a joke but no one serious does.  (And if you want to talk with what internet commentators say should I bring up what some feminists commentators have said about men?)

 

And for the record . . . why is it again that in order to have the right to vote I have to between the ages of 18 and 25 volunteer my life to the state to use at their discretion but women don't.  In fact most of men's basic rights in this country are entirely dependent upon him volunteering his life to the state.  

 

You know what if you had asked me at age 18, I would have taken a 5% drop in pay in the future so as to not have to sign up for selective service I would have done it.

 

If that makes me a coward then that's fine. . . but I would rather be assured of the right to choose if I want to fight and potentially die in a war or rather then have that decided for me by the government.  At least in the first case I can choose if a cause is worth dying for.  

[Valpo2004]

Excuse me!  Where in my post did I say that changing the name was an evil or wrong goal or that it was unimportant?

 

I'm sorry that you find my desire to have more concentration put on the plight of those in reservations rather than on a nickname to be meaningless. 

 

Btw, aren't you the same guy who said that the pic of Lebron wearing a pink bra and a headband with a pink bow wasn't sexist because guys just do things like that . . . they insult one another by saying that the other has female characteristics because that's just guys bonding???

 

If so, you certainly do blow hot and cold.

 

I'm saying it's a meaningless criticism.  They can do with their money what they like and it isn't part of the issue.

 

I did say that and I believe it to be true now.  And while I mentioned the difference in how men bond my entire point was that both sexes take insult at being compared to the other sex.   So while it was insulting to Lebron, it should not be viewed as insulting to women considering women would take comparisons to a man as a personal insult and it would not be viewed as some insult against all men.

 

The main reason I take exception to this is that no one calls a native American a redskin without insulting their entire race.  

[John Dee]

If the "PC" world makes D Snyder change the name of the WASHINGTON REDSKINS ... I am done with the NFL.      This is just out of hand. 

 

Cut the ones who are "native" and "offended" a check and it is all over.....   oh, wait...    the white guys are the ones who are loudest on this issue....   banging a drum for a useless cause when our brothers and sisters have been dying overseas for.....  

 

WHAT?     freedom?     OK..     

 

I can name 20 nicknames that ref native Indians...   and NOT one is an issue....   BUT the NFL REDSKINS are,.,

 

hmmmm ?      Why I wonder?     News for some dead beat politician?    Oh no ....    never... 

 

My favorite nickname of all is the N  Dakota St  Sioux...        OMG///         North Dakota folk are SO insensitive...  That fanbase embraces it...     Florida St Seminoles.         BLACKHAWKS?        INDIANS?          But Redskin is the BIGGEST.. 

 

 

LOL....     comicallll....  Truly comical.     

 

Go Danial Snyder...   stick to your guns.

Edited June 16, 2014 by 21isSuperman

[GwinnettColt]

Um, Actually they do. America has killed way more Natives than any country combined when you want to go into specifics of genocide.

 

No one likes to bring it up cause they'll say "but it happened a long time ago" but it did happen. All that flag waving nationalism don't erase the blood stains that birthed this nation. This country was founded on the blood shed of mass genocide to the original occupiers to the land. America killed way, way more Natives and Africans (slave trade) than the Nazi's killed of the Jews, and even if you combine all the deaths of the communists in the Eastern Bloc that the Nazi's murdered (they killed plenty of Eastern people too, the first people the Nazi's murdered were the communists, if you want to be accurate) it still don't come close to the numbers of America the great's death toll to what they did to the Natives. In fact the Nazi's even praised the founding fathers for their extermination of the Natives. Hitler wrote nice things about them and praised them for it.

Besides this, I always find it ironic and sometimes hilarious that America is the one country likes to remind everyone in the world about who kills people, but no one can ever bring up the bloody history that founded this very own country where we still are one of the most racist and sexist countries in the world, and it's all in the name of profit. Thank you capitalism!

 

America has a very long history of being cruel to anything that's not white, (and women too, seeing we still treat them like second class citizens) if you want to go into this, when the Irish and Italians first came to America, they too had to face racial discrimination from the white Christians, cause according to them, the Irish weren't white enough for them. There is books and historical documentation written about this. Same goes for the Jewish people too, America was pretty mean to them too before the Third Reich even existed, and still to this day, we have stereotypical imagery of Jewish people and even Italians, though it's no where near as bad as all the sexist objectification of women that we see everyday in advertising and entertainment. 

It all goes back to capitalism and the exploitation of race, religion, and gender.

 

If they changed the name, it would make a lot of people happy. As the only ones unhappy would be the typical "this is muh Murica!" group of people who's opinion mean absolutely nothing to me.

 

If you can find a better country to live in, Delta Airlines is ready when you are.

[GwinnettColt]

If the "PC" world makes D Snyder change the name of the WASHINGTON REDSKINS ... I am done with the NFL.      This is just out of hand. 

 

Cut the ones who are "native" and "offended" a check and it is all over.....   oh, wait...    the white guys are the ones who are loudest on this issue....   banging a drum for a useless cause when our brothers and sisters have been dying overseas for.....  

 

WHAT?     freedom?     OK..     

 

I can name 20 nicknames that ref native Indians...   and NOT one is an issue....   BUT the NFL REDSKINS are,.,

 

hmmmm ?      Why I wonder?     News for some dead beat politician?    Oh no ....    never... 

 

My favorite nickname of all is the N  Dakota St  Sioux...        OMFG///         North Dakota folk are SO insensitive...  That fanbase embraces it...     Florida St Seminoles.         BLACKHAWKS?        INDIANS?          But Redskin is the BIGGEST.. 

 

 

LOL....     comicallll....  Truly comical.     

 

Go Danial Snyder...   stick to your guns.

I think a deeper issue is that the NFL has become a social experiment for pundits on television.  Another case in point is Michael Sam.   The Rams were lauded for picking him, not for any ability as a football player, though.  

Personally, I don't care who Sam dates but I don't need it thrown in front of my face as they did on ESPN for weeks.  The same is true with the Redskins, if the owner, who OWNS the team name, contract rights to players, and equipment chooses to change it then, kudos.  If not, ok.  If it was that big of an issue, the players should quit the team if it means anything to them.  Chances are, however, they won't as their contracts and salary will mean more to them than the team name.   

[OffensivelyPC]

During halftime in tonight NBA playoff game there will be a two minute film about the slanderous, racist name "redskins". It ends by saying the American Indians are referred to by many names. Guess which one is unacceptable?

Compare this example to the Redskins name; if there was a swastika carved out or painted on any of the monuments like the Statue of Liberty in this country every means possible would be made to remove it ASAP and people would be teed off. Fans or not, all people in the Washington area should boycott the home games and if that does not work players must boycott the 2014 season until the name is changed. If that sounds radical just ask why that team INSISTS on keeping that name. Do they think it is cute? Is it a sign of pride or integrity. Boycott or change it.

Did they actually say "American Indians?"  Oh the irony.  The thing is, that's just as offensive to some natives as "redskin" is to others.  What I find completely hypocritical about that is, the basis for using the word "Indian" is no better, if not worse, than the basis for keeping the Redskins team name.  The word "Indian" is based on a historical error in which Columbus thought he was in India, and referred to the natives as Indian.  Obviously incorrect.  Scholars today argue the word should be retained as a reference to the natives because it's been used so long that it's basically commonplace. 

 

The word "redskin" was also used to identify natives.  They themselves used the to distinguish themselves from the Europeans, whom they called whiteskins.  There is documented proof that this was a common and accepted used in treaties and other correspondence in the late 1700s at least up until the early 1900s.  Whether it was used after, I believe 1921 is uncertain.  When and how this word became offensive, no one can really offer any universally accepted proof as to why.  But what I find hypocritical is that if the words "indian" and "redskin" were basically interchangeable for so long, why is it that "indian" is acceptable and "redskin" is not. 

[Blue Horseshoe]

I think they should change the name to the Washington Red Inks for two reasons

1) It pays homage to the work done by the politicians who work there

2) It is an anagram of Redskin

[King Colt]

Way too many of you apparently are not history majors. Back when whites were massacring native Americans, shooting their bison for kicks and pelts, raping their women, killing their babies, running them off their own land, swindling them in land for trade deals, giving them blankets infected with fatal diseases they referred to then as redskins and savages. Keep in mind this is also the time in America's glorious history when we bought sand sold human beings that were black skinned (when weren't hanging them for the heck of it) and we doped a generation of Asians with morphine and opium. Why as early back as Viet Nam WE decided they did not deserve to be called Vietnamese so WE decided to call the "gooks". Cute name eh? Also, anyone recall what the Iraq people were called? Dose the term "rag heads" ring a bell? This all goes back to point #6 -"decency". Now do you get it?!

[Qwiz]

I think they should change the name to the Washington Red Inks for two reasons

1) It pays homage to the work done by the politicians who work there

2) It is an anagram of Redskin

Red Inks is a terrible football name lol

[RGIII]

Way too many of you apparently are not history majors. Back when whites were massacring native Americans, shooting their bison for kicks and pelts, raping their women, killing their babies, running them off their own land, swindling them in land for trade deals, giving them blankets infected with fatal diseases they referred to then as redskins and savages. Keep in mind this is also the time in America's glorious history when we bought sand sold human beings that were black skinned (when weren't hanging them for the heck of it) and we doped a generation of Asians with morphine and opium. Why as early back as Viet Nam WE decided they did not deserve to be called Vietnamese so WE decided to call the "gooks". Cute name eh? Also, anyone recall what the Iraq people were called? Dose the term "rag heads" ring a bell? This all goes back to point #6 -"decency". Now do you get it?!

 

You've brought some historical references to this thread with the post but absolutely no historical context.  The term redskin has far more ambiguous origins than the other terms you likened it to.  Gooks, for example, supposedly originated as a slang reference for prostitutes while savages is pretty blindingly obvious racial mischaracterization.

 

Linguists have actually looked into the term and determined that it was initially adopted by Native Americans themselves and was far from derogatory at its inception.  What it became is more murky and is where there may actually be some merit to the outcry of the current vocal minority.  The thing is, though, that the negative turn was the product of strong popular perception that painted pretty much anything to do with American Indians in a harsh light and also, rather unfortunately, coincided with the rise of mass media (movies, large and unscrupulous national publications, etc.).  It's not that redskin was ever explicitly derogative in and of itself.  Instead, pretty much any and all characterizations made from the 1850s through a decent chunk of the 20th century carried inherent, ingrained undertones of racism.

 

What you make of that is entirely up to you.  For me, the term has fallen out of the average American lexicon so much that I only typically associate it with the team and haven't been exposed to any usage of it that is negative.  When I look at the root of the word and what it's been through, it seems more like a fairly innocuous descriptor that got caught up in fairly dark and deplorable times.  At it's core, it's a term that's really not that different than white or black are as simple adjectives.  When put in the right contexts the usage of black or white can be used to construct some fairly insidious and inflammatory speech.  However, they're socially acceptable in most every day contexts and are completely neutral terms when isolated.

 

tl;dr - Etymology is stupid complicated.

[NFLfan]

You've brought some historical references to this thread with the post but absolutely no historical context. The term redskin has far more ambiguous origins than the other terms you likened it to. Gooks, for example, supposedly originated as a slang reference for prostitutes while savages is pretty blindingly obvious racial mischaracterization.

Linguists have actually looked into the term and determined that it was initially adopted by Native Americans themselves and was far from derogatory at its inception. What it became is more murky and is where there may actually be some merit to the outcry of the current vocal minority. The thing is, though, that the negative turn was the product of strong popular perception that painted pretty much anything to do with American Indians in a harsh light and also, rather unfortunately, coincided with the rise of mass media (movies, large and unscrupulous national publications, etc.). It's not that redskin was ever explicitly derogative in and of itself. Instead, pretty much any and all characterizations made from the 1850s through a decent chunk of the 20th century carried inherent, ingrained undertones of racism.

What you make of that is entirely up to you. For me, the term has fallen out of the average American lexicon so much that I only typically associate it with the team and haven't been exposed to any usage of it that is negative. When I look at the root of the word and what it's been through, it seems more like a fairly innocuous descriptor that got caught up in fairly dark and deplorable times. At it's core, it's a term that's really not that different than white or black are as simple adjectives. When put in the right contexts the usage of black or white can be used to construct some fairly insidious and inflammatory speech. However, they're socially acceptable in most every day contexts and are completely neutral terms when isolated.

tl;dr - Etymology is stupid complicated.

You inspired me to read about the origins of the word and its later uses. You did a good job summarizing what has been reported to be its etymology.

While it may not have originally been used in a pejorative sense, it seems that years later it was. I see this the same way Nadine does and the way two Hall of Fame members of the team see it:

"[if] Native Americans feel like Redskins or the Chiefs or [another] name is offensive to them, then who are we to say to them, 'No, it's not?' " Monk said. Green agreed, saying, "It deserves and warrants conversation because somebody is saying, 'Hey, this offends me,' and then you have a conversation."

St. John's University changed their name from Redmen to Red Storm. While it sounded a bit strange at first, the world did not fall apart and there is no longer a controversy involving the name of the team.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/codeswitch/2013/09/09/220654611/are-you-ready-for-some-controversy-the-history-of-redskin

[southwest1]

Regarding the underlined.  

 

First of all do you realize that when you account for differences in hours worked and types of careers the difference is 5%??

 

How can you even qualify or quantify that statement scientifically without providing me with a specific field of study like a civil engineer 1 male & 1 female working for the same company, their job description duties, their number of salary increases or promotions over the course of 5 years, 10 years, 15 years, & 20 years, & 5% of what exactly? Their projected annal income & earning potential? Unless we know their starting salary from day 1, your 5% remark is like a statistic with no realistic context V2004. 

 

Would you take a 20 times higher risk of dying at work for a 5.25% raise.  That is the difference between work for men and women when you break it down.  

 

Again, a hypothetic number a 5.25% raise with no tangible career place example regarding how much a male civil engineer earns in comparison to their female counterpart is a trivial number. You haven't broken anything down sir. All I see is conjecture & speculation. 

 

Secondly no serious political commentator asks a woman that question.  Some people ask it as a joke but no one serious does.  (And if you want to talk with what internet commentators say should I bring up what some feminists commentators have said about men?)

 

Running to become the next President Of The United States is fraught with direct questions & symbolic inferences. Please tell me that you are not this naive. Women in a high profile federal office are held to a different standard of scrutiny & judgment than male candidates typically are held to or scrutinized for. I could give you examples but then my post would get too political in scope & thereby lock down this topic ending any further discussion. 

 

And for the record . . . why is it again that in order to have the right to vote I have to between the ages of 18 and 25 volunteer my life to the state to use at their discretion but women don't.  In fact most of men's basic rights in this country are entirely dependent upon him volunteering his life to the state.  

 

What in the world are you talking about? The draft? Dying in a war? Vietnam & our participation in that S. East Asia conflict ended in 1975. 

 

You know what if you had asked me at age 18, I would have taken a 5% drop in pay in the future so as to not have to sign up for selective service I would have done it.

 

See my previous response above. Thank you.

 

If that makes me a coward then that's fine. . . but I would rather be assured of the right to choose if I want to fight and potentially die in a war or rather then have that decided for me by the government.  At least in the first case I can choose if a cause is worth dying for.  

 

I would never call you a coward sir. I just fail to subscribe to your theory that since women were not required to fight in a war overseas they directly benefited from a college education that keep them alive & increased their earning potential vs men who died in war. 1. There was the GI bill in 1950's that allowed men who returned home from war to go to college, get more money, while women stayed home & tended to raising children & tending to home duties. 2. Even if women by the 1970's entered the workforce or obtained more college degrees than their husbands did, the issue here is an equal pay scale for a day's work & women have always been paid less by employers in the business world. 3. An unequal pay scale still exists in 2014. It didn't end or get rectified after the conflict in Asia was over sir. 

 

"Last I checked they didn't have to, by law place their life at risk at the demands of the state in order to get the right to vote or receive financial aid to go to college." Huh? What does access to financial aid have to do with an unequal pay scale among men & women in the 21st Century? Nothing.  Women are graduating with college degrees from universities at a rate equal or higher than men & they still earn less money over the course of men in the same career field sir. 

[braveheartcolt]

Personally I find the pompous and arrogant nickname and logo an insult. RGIII should be abolished forthwith. Redskins? Who cares. We freely write this word without fear of being castigated or banned etc. Puts it in perspective when you think of other racial words which we rightly avoid.

What happens when Colt becomes a derogatory term for a young gay man? Will we continually have to change our culture so as not to offend a bunch of people against which the name was not intended to insult?

The world is becoming unnecessarily tainted over some very minor things. If and when the Native Americans rise up and crusade in unity against this, let it go. I'm sure they have much more important issues to fight.

As a Scotsman, if I was to get offended by every 'racial' comment thrown at our country and country folk, I'd be dead with worry. I wouldn't even be able to watch Mrs Doubrfire without having palpitations.

[southwest1]

Personally I find the pompous and arrogant nickname and logo an insult. RGIII should be abolished forthwith. Redskins? Who cares. We freely write this word without fear of being castigated or banned etc. Puts it in perspective when you think of other racial words which we rightly avoid.

What happens when Colt becomes a derogatory term for a young gay man? Will we continually have to change our culture so as not to offend a bunch of people against which the name was not intended to insult?

The world is becoming unnecessarily tainted over some very minor things. If and when the Native Americans rise up and crusade in unity against this, let it go. I'm sure they have much more important issues to fight.

As a Scotsman, if I was to get offended by every 'racial' comment thrown at our country and country folk, I'd be dead with worry. I wouldn't even be able to watch Mrs Doubrfire without having palpitations.

I love your sarcasm BHC. " RGIII should be abolished forthwith...Who cares." 

 

Your observation is right on the money here like always. There are more important things to worry about in the league than a trademarked team name like say universal healthcare after NFL players retire & admitting the link between frequent concussions & dementia later in life as a former player. 

 

If I ever insult your home country of Scotland, I apologize in advance & please be sure to correct me on my misconception & set me straight. Thank you. Either that, or send the spirit of William Wallace after me. Just kidding! I do love that movie "BraveHeart" BTW. A great flick! 

[ruksak]

What? The Redskins do not compare to a genocidal superiority sect who engaged the entire world in a war on their bid for conquest and extermination.

Well.....to be fair, they are the team of Washington DC. As we all know, Washington led this once White nation in a ravenous genocidal campaign of terror against all Native Americans. 

 

I remember being taught about "Custer's Last Stand" in school as if it was some tragic event in American history. It wasn't even a stand. He meant to sweep down into a valley and murder every single man, woman and child.....thousands of them. To his surprise, many of his intended genocide victims were warriors. I only wish I was there to see those racist pigs get sliced to ribbons. 

[southwest1]

Well.....to be fair, they are the team of Washington DC. As we all know, Washington led this once White nation in a ravenous genocidal campaign of terror against all Native Americans. 

 

I remember being taught about "Custer's Last Stand" in school as if it was some tragic event in American history. It wasn't even a stand. He meant to sweep down into a valley and murder every single man, woman and child.....thousands of them. To his surprise, many of his intended genocide victims were warriors. I only wish I was there to see those racist pigs get sliced to ribbons. 

Another master of sarcasm in our midst. Your 1st dark humor line was priceless ruksak. Humor often does reveal the unvarnished truth. Yes, what we are often taught in school about Custer's historical demise & what actually happened are drastically different outcomes. 

 

I was watching an old John Wayne western called "Stage Coach" yesterday & the white cavalry led by John saved a woman & her baby on the stagecoach despite about 30 Indians who know that terrain in the Southwest better than the US Army does. Come on man! Just once, I wanna see a western where the "savage" Indian tribe slaughters the pompous, white riders on horseback. Even the score for decades of reservation relocations when American Indians were the true inhabitants of the New World & rectify dishonest treaty negotiations done in bad faith. 

 

Okay, SW1 is done with my minor rant now. LOL! 

[OffensivelyPC]

You inspired me to read about the origins of the word and its later uses. You did a good job summarizing what has been reported to be its etymology.

While it may not have originally been used in a pejorative sense, it seems that years later it was. I see this the same way Nadine does and the way two Hall of Fame members of the team see it:

"[if] Native Americans feel like Redskins or the Chiefs or [another] name is offensive to them, then who are we to say to them, 'No, it's not?' " Monk said. Green agreed, saying, "It deserves and warrants conversation because somebody is saying, 'Hey, this offends me,' and then you have a conversation."

St. John's University changed their name from Redmen to Red Storm. While it sounded a bit strange at first, the world did not fall apart and there is no longer a controversy involving the name of the team.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/codeswitch/2013/09/09/220654611/are-you-ready-for-some-controversy-the-history-of-redskin

The reverse of this is also true.  Who are we to say that it is offensive.  Natives have made it absolutely clear that they will join the legal battle where they feel they are being misrepresented or disrespected.  Here, we have only one tribe, out of the hundreds of tribes purporting to speak on behalf of all natives.  There are certainly team names and mascots that might need changing.  Chief Wahoo, for instance.  But on the other hand, there have been times where a small group changes something in the name of ending ethnic disparagement and the fix was contrary to what the affected tribe wanted - i.e. when the NCAA forced the Fighting Sioux to change their name and the Sioux tribe sued to have the name reinstated and the court denied them on technical grounds.

[Derakynn]

I find it funny in general how people can think it is racist. Why would a national football team choose their mascot to be something that they hate? You don't flaunt your product negatively. Do you go to the store and the apple juice is labeled as "Tastes like cow urine" or "Great for inducing vomiting"? It doesn't make sense. Context is everything. You can't just decide to make a word racist because you want to. Except you can, because fools will do whatever they want to get on the news. 

[southwest1]

You inspired me to read about the origins of the word and its later uses. You did a good job summarizing what has been reported to be its etymology.

While it may not have originally been used in a pejorative sense, it seems that years later it was. I see this the same way Nadine does and the way two Hall of Fame members of the team see it:

"[if] Native Americans feel like Redskins or the Chiefs or [another] name is offensive to them, then who are we to say to them, 'No, it's not?' " Monk said. Green agreed, saying, "It deserves and warrants conversation because somebody is saying, 'Hey, this offends me,' and then you have a conversation."

St. John's University changed their name from Redmen to Red Storm. While it sounded a bit strange at first, the world did not fall apart and there is no longer a controversy involving the name of the team.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/codeswitch/2013/09/09/220654611/are-you-ready-for-some-controversy-the-history-of-redskin

A great link there NFLfan describing the origins of the word "Redskin" & it's evolution over time. I also watched the cartoon in your story called "Tom & Jerry in Redskin Blues."

 

It's  atrocious how the artist of that cartoon used the following images: Indians are "savages" because they set up firewood & tie white characters to a stake like a witch so therefore they must be evil, even their weapons are deemed primitive because at 1 point arrows are placed into a machine gun to fire more arrows [The implication being that white people are more sophisticated with better weapons & the only way to defeat them is to duplicate their "superior" weapons & therefore "superior" intellect, & finally once the Indian Chief is caught by the savior cavalry unit the man is not an Indian at all thereby making the existence of the American Indian invisible like their plight & culture doesn't even matter at all. 

 

I only bring up this cartoon to illustrate a profound point made by Nadine I think previously: If the NFL eradicates all American Indian names to be used as a team name ever again aren't you systematically saying that American Indian contributions don't matter anymore in our society, especially if the league a popular sports enterprise eliminates all Indian related names? That would be a horrible precedent IMO making the contributions of various tribes disappear from the NFL landscape forever. JMO. 

 

What's next? An animal rights group doesn't want certain animal names to be used on football teams because they might be on the endangered species list or encourage children to treat their household cats violently like a wild Panther or Jaguar beast? I'm kidding naturally but it's getting to that point. 

[ruksak]

I find it funny in general how people can think it is racist. Why would a national football team choose their mascot to be something that they hate? You don't flaunt your product negatively. Do you go to the store and the apple juice is labeled as "Tastes like cow urine" or "Great for inducing vomiting"? It doesn't make sense. Context is everything. You can't just decide to make a word racist because you want to. Except you can, because fools will do whatever they want to get on the news. 

Firstly, when the name was adopted it was common to be a flagrant racist to every minority you meet on the street. 

 

Secondly, the hypocrisy is stunning here. 

 

Redskin. Think about it. C'mon....man

 

How 'bout them New Jersey Blackskins? They gonna go all the way this year. Love their mascot, Picaninny Joe. 

 

Redskins? That's overtly derogatory, no matter what pretense you wish to claim the name truly means. If you can't go up to the race in question and refer to them by a certain term, then it's likely not appropriate to have an NFL with that name either. Go ahead, test my theory. Find you a Native American and call him a redskin. I bet you get your butt kicked right off the dusty, godforsaken corner of Oklahoma desolation that this nation forced them to live on. 

 

A team should not be named after a race of people, especially not when said name describes their skin tone. 

[NFLfan]

A great link there NFLfan describing the origins of the word "Redskin" & it's evolution over time. I also watched the cartoon in your story called "Tom & Jerry in Redskin Blues."

It's atrocious how the artist of that cartoon used the following images: Indians are "savages" because they set up firewood & tie white characters to a stake like a witch so therefore they must be evil, even their weapons are deemed primitive because at 1 point arrows are placed into a machine gun to fire more arrows [The implication being that white people are more sophisticated with better weapons & the only way to defeat them is to duplicate their "superior" weapons & therefore "superior" intellect, & finally once the Indian Chief is caught by the savior cavalry unit the man is not an Indian at all thereby making the existence of the American Indian invisible like their plight & culture doesn't even matter at all.

I only bring up this cartoon to illustrate a profound point made by Nadine I think previously: If the NFL eradicates all American Indian names to be used as a team name ever again aren't you systematically saying that American Indian contributions don't matter anymore in our society, especially if the league a popular sports enterprise eliminates all Indian related names? That would be a horrible precedent IMO making the contributions of various tribes disappear from the NFL landscape forever. JMO.

What's next? An animal rights group doesn't want certain animal names to be used on football teams because they might be on the endangered species list or encourage children to treat their household cats violently like a wild Panther or Jaguar beast? I'm kidding naturally but it's getting to that point.

I get what you are saying, SW, but I think it is a stretch to say that getting rid of the name "Redskins" will cause Native Americans and their contributions to be forgotten and be less valued. (Actually, I never thought of Native Americans when I heard the name Redskins, but then again, I am not sensitive to that name because I am not a member of that race.)

There are still a lot of teams and cities around the country that are named after Native Americans. No one is pushing to rename Sioux Falls,SD, Cheyenne, WY, or the KC Chiefs, the FSU Seminoles, the Braves, or even the Cleveland Indians, at least not that I am aware of. Some people may fear a precedent may be set to change other team names, but that is just a way to rationalize their argument.

How many people are losing sleep because the Washington Bullets are now called the Wizards? Was there this much backlash when the change was being considered? I cannot recall but maybe someone on the forum would know.

[Superman]

The reverse of this is also true.  Who are we to say that it is offensive.  Natives have made it absolutely clear that they will join the legal battle where they feel they are being misrepresented or disrespected.  Here, we have only one tribe, out of the hundreds of tribes purporting to speak on behalf of all natives.  There are certainly team names and mascots that might need changing.  Chief Wahoo, for instance.  But on the other hand, there have been times where a small group changes something in the name of ending ethnic disparagement and the fix was contrary to what the affected tribe wanted - i.e. when the NCAA forced the Fighting Sioux to change their name and the Sioux tribe sued to have the name reinstated and the court denied them on technical grounds.

 

Yeah, but the reverse of that is also true, isn't it? 

 

...

 

This is what we call circular logic. 

 

I get what you're saying, though. Most groups haven't chosen to take issue with this; some have even said that they aren't offended by the term. But some have, as you mentioned. It's just hard for me personally to dismiss someone if they say that a term that's directed toward them specifically is offensive. Yeah, it's an overly PC world anymore, but this isn't like some ultra-sensitive person, three conversations away, chiding you for using a colorful term. That's why I get what Art Monk is saying: If there are Native American people who find the term offensive, does it really matter what the etymology is? Does the intent of the organization using the term change the fact that some find it offensive? I don't have strong feelings about the term, personally, but I think it's kind of arrogant and condescending to tell someone that a phrase shouldn't be offensive to them.

 

JMO

[southwest1]

I get what you are saying, SW, but I think it is a stretch to say that getting rid of the name "Redskins" will cause Native Americans and their contributions to be forgotten and be less valued. (Actually, I never thought of Native Americans when I heard the name Redskins, but then again, I am not sensitive to that name because I am not a member of that race.)

There are still a lot of teams and cities around the country that are named after Native Americans. No one is pushing to rename Sioux Falls,SD, Cheyenne, WY, or the KC Chiefs, the FSU Seminoles, the Braves, or even the Cleveland Indians, at least not that I am aware of. Some people may fear a precedent may be set to change other team names, but that is just a way to rationalize their argument.

How many people are losing sleep because the Washington Bullets are now called the Wizards? Was there this much backlash when the change was being considered? I cannot recall but maybe someone on the forum would know.

My only point was this: The NFL is a huge platform of international exposure & notoriety on a global scale & when you see your favorite Washington D.C. team with that logo on the helmet of your favorite player like QB RG3 a little kid might be inspired to learn about the origins of their name & the history of the American Indians over the centuries. Do you really think a little kid would care about a city where they live named after a tribe? I highly doubt it. But, seeing Washington play a game on Monday Night Football might prompt a kid to read a book on various tribes in the area where an enthralled football fan literally lives based on the attention & platform an NFL TV broadcast provides him with. Exposure leads to popularity & popularity might promote a push to learn more about a particular band of Indians near a NFL fan that instills pride in that child's own native heritage. 

 

It's not my place to discuss whether the name Washington Redskins is a racist one because I have no American Indian blood in me nor am I a member of a specific band or tribe. In other words, my cultural heritage has no direct tie to a sovereign nation within the United States & therefore I have no legal or moral authority to realistically address the meaning of the name head on. It's the difference between walking in someone else's shoes from birth & reading about 2nd or 3rd hand about it in a journal or periodical from a considerable distance. 

 

I can believe that this controversy has been blown out of proportion, still cherish their rights as a nation, & still at the end of the day have no jurisdiction to convey my personal beliefs on this issue [the push for or against a name change] because I was not born into a specific tribe's inner circle by blood or family relation. 

[OffensivelyPC]

Yeah, but the reverse of that is also true, isn't it? 

 

...

 

This is what we call circular logic. 

 

I get what you're saying, though. Most groups haven't chosen to take issue with this; some have even said that they aren't offended by the term. But some have, as you mentioned. It's just hard for me personally to dismiss someone if they say that a term that's directed toward them specifically is offensive. Yeah, it's an overly PC world anymore, but this isn't like some ultra-sensitive person, three conversations away, chiding you for using a colorful term. That's why I get what Art Monk is saying: If there are Native American people who find the term offensive, does it really matter what the etymology is? Does the intent of the organization using the term change the fact that some find it offensive? I don't have strong feelings about the term, personally, but I think it's kind of arrogant and condescending to tell someone that a phrase shouldn't be offensive to them.

 

JMO

While it may sound condescending, I want to make it clear that I am not telling someone how or what they should be offended by.  But this isn't about telling people how they should be offended.  This is about how people who are offended (and let's be clear, people can be offended by anything these days) are telling others how to curb their conduct.  And to me, that is equally as arrogant and condescending as someone saying they shouldn't be offended by a word.  And it's one thing to say, "hey man, I don't like to be called that" and you just don't call that person that thing anymore.  This is the 10% telling the 90% that their football team, which for some represents a badge of honor to their culture, is offensive and taking it to the legal forum to get the logo and team name changed.  That's my problem with this whole thing.  I don't use the term to refer to any native tribesman.  It's fallen out of common usage as far as being descriptive of a native, and as a matter of context, it would be weird to walk up and say, "Hey redskin."  It would be no less awkward in conversation to greet a black fellow as "Hello, black man."  You would say "sir" or something like "hey, man" in less formal settings.

 

To the average, every day person, "Redskin" refers to the team name.  And in context, redskin can be offensive.  But like the N-word, in context, the word isn't offensive to some blacks, and in another context, would be offensive to the same black man.  To other black men, the word is offensive 100% of the time.  While I think the N-word and redskin aren't comparable as far as the extent of their derogatory nature, it's comparable as far as contextually offensive scenarios and the listener's preference. 

 

All that being said, it's just a word.  You can't sue the world from not using the word and erasing it from the english lexicon.  You're going to hear the word from time to time, and you will either be offended or not offended.  But as I've said before, when 90% of Natives don't hvae a problem with the word, I don't understand how the small minority get to tell others what to do.  When has that ever been the case in any society? (EDIT I understand that minorities get misrepresented from time to time, and cultural pushes are made, and maybe this is one of them, but those typically involve innate human rights and benefits across races and other subgroups such as homosexuals, not the simple use of a word)  Like, I'm sorry that the word offends you, but that's something you're just going to have to deal with.  I do'nt like when people besmirch my religion openly on TV, but I just let it go because I realize that we all have differing opinions and values in this world, and they are entitled to those opinions and values provided they aren't illegal or endangering.  We all deal with things on a daily basis that offend us, but you gotta draw the line somewhere.  And to me, that line should reflect the fact that the 10% shouldn't be allowed to tell the 90% who don't find the word offensive that legally, the word is offensive, the consequence of which changes the identity of a football franchise which the overwhelming majority do not wnat changed.

[King Colt]

You've brought some historical references to this thread with the post but absolutely no historical context.  The term redskin has far more ambiguous origins than the other terms you likened it to.  Gooks, for example, supposedly originated as a slang reference for prostitutes while savages is pretty blindingly obvious racial mischaracterization.

 

Linguists have actually looked into the term and determined that it was initially adopted by Native Americans themselves and was far from derogatory at its inception.  What it became is more murky and is where there may actually be some merit to the outcry of the current vocal minority.  The thing is, though, that the negative turn was the product of strong popular perception that painted pretty much anything to do with American Indians in a harsh light and also, rather unfortunately, coincided with the rise of mass media (movies, large and unscrupulous national publications, etc.).  It's not that redskin was ever explicitly derogative in and of itself.  Instead, pretty much any and all characterizations made from the 1850s through a decent chunk of the 20th century carried inherent, ingrained undertones of racism.

 

What you make of that is entirely up to you.  For me, the term has fallen out of the average American lexicon so much that I only typically associate it with the team and haven't been exposed to any usage of it that is negative.  When I look at the root of the word and what it's been through, it seems more like a fairly innocuous descriptor that got caught up in fairly dark and deplorable times.  At it's core, it's a term that's really not that different than white or black are as simple adjectives.  When put in the right contexts the usage of black or white can be used to construct some fairly insidious and inflammatory speech.  However, they're socially acceptable in most every day contexts and are completely neutral terms when isolated.

 

tl;dr - Etymology is stupid complicated.

Perhaps one of the most naïve posts I have ever read. Put down your encyclopedia, put your shoes on and take a walk down the streets of this country. "Dames" and Babes", two terms to describe what?

[Nadine]

Did anyone follow the chief Illiniwek controversey at the University of Illinois?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chief_Illiniwek

 

I predict that the NFL at some point will provide some financial disincentive to using the name Redskin

 

That's what the NCAA did 

 

 the NCAA termed Chief Illiniwek a "hostile or abusive" mascot and image in August 2005^[2] and banned the university from hosting postseason activities as long as it continued to use the mascot and symbol.

 

[Superman]

While it may sound condescending, I want to make it clear that I am not telling someone how or what they should be offended by.  But this isn't about telling people how they should be offended.  This is about how people who are offended (and let's be clear, people can be offended by anything these days) are telling others how to curb their conduct.  And to me, that is equally as arrogant and condescending as someone saying they shouldn't be offended by a word.  And it's one thing to say, "hey man, I don't like to be called that" and you just don't call that person that thing anymore.  This is the 10% telling the 90% that their football team, which for some represents a badge of honor to their culture, is offensive and taking it to the legal forum to get the logo and team name changed.  That's my problem with this whole thing.  I don't use the term to refer to any native tribesman.  It's fallen out of common usage as far as being descriptive of a native, and as a matter of context, it would be weird to walk up and say, "Hey redskin."  It would be no less awkward in conversation to greet a black fellow as "Hello, black man."  You would say "sir" or something like "hey, man" in less formal settings.

 

To the average, every day person, "Redskin" refers to the team name.  And in context, redskin can be offensive.  But like the N-word, in context, the word isn't offensive to some blacks, and in another context, would be offensive to the same black man.  To other black men, the word is offensive 100% of the time.  While I think the N-word and redskin aren't comparable as far as the extent of their derogatory nature, it's comparable as far as contextually offensive scenarios and the listener's preference. 

 

All that being said, it's just a word.  You can't sue the world from not using the word and erasing it from the english lexicon.  You're going to hear the word from time to time, and you will either be offended or not offended.  But as I've said before, when 90% of Natives don't hvae a problem with the word, I don't understand how the small minority get to tell others what to do.  When has that ever been the case in any society? (EDIT I understand that minorities get misrepresented from time to time, and cultural pushes are made, and maybe this is one of them, but those typically involve innate human rights and benefits across races and other subgroups such as homosexuals, not the simple use of a word)  Like, I'm sorry that the word offends you, but that's something you're just going to have to deal with.  I do'nt like when people besmirch my religion openly on TV, but I just let it go because I realize that we all have differing opinions and values in this world, and they are entitled to those opinions and values provided they aren't illegal or endangering.  We all deal with things on a daily basis that offend us, but you gotta draw the line somewhere.  And to me, that line should reflect the fact that the 10% shouldn't be allowed to tell the 90% who don't find the word offensive that legally, the word is offensive, the consequence of which changes the identity of a football franchise which the overwhelming majority do not wnat changed.

 

Good points throughout...

 

To the bolded:

 

1) Some black people aren't offended by the n-word, but there are no sports franchises using that word in their name. And if there were, I can guarantee you that they would have come under intense heat a long time ago. So just because some people aren't offended by it doesn't mean it's an appropriate name for your team. If Snyder were naming his team today, he would have to choose something other than "Redskins."

 

2) Are you sure that 90% of Native Americans don't have a problem with the word?

 

3) Just like #1, there's a difference between making fun of a group -- on the basis of religion, orientation, gender, profession, etc. -- but a good business owner wouldn't name his company after a term that some find offensive. 

 

4) Piggybacking on #3, this is the whole reason I shake my head at the whole thing. I know the PC crowd can drown out reason sometimes, but Snyder would have been better served to change the team's name before the noise got as loud as it is now. He's costing his business by not doing so. (For example, there was recently a store-front business in an urban area that fixed spiked plates into the ground in front of their store. They wanted to prevent homeless people from sleeping in front of their business, which is reasonable. This drew the ire of some people -- a vocal minority, to be sure -- and it led to protests in front of the store. So, despite the fact that it was their right to put these plates on their property in front of their store, they wound up removing them in short order, because it was costing them business, and it was hurting their reputation. I find this to be really stupid; if they had put in bike racks or something, there would have been no noise at all. But they didn't handle it in a sensitive way, people got upset, and they changed course.)

 

So for me, in all, it's not hard to accept that this is a racially insensitive term. If it were my team, I think I would have changed the name a long time ago, not because I find the term offensive, but because I think it would be good business.

[southwest1]

Did anyone follow the chief Illiniwek controversey at the University of Illinois?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chief_Illiniwek

 

I predict that the NFL at some point will provide some financial disincentive to using the name Redskin

 

That's what the NCAA did 

Exactly Nadine. Like I said previously to Valpo2004 on this topic, for the right price this controversy will get resolved & all parties will be satisfied in the end eventually. 

 

"Synder won't move here until the NFL Commission gives Dan a sweetheart financial deal to make it worth his while to change the name. Money talks & for the right price Dan will play ball." --SW1.

 

I'm not tooting my own horn BTW, I just agree with you 100% that using enough money as leverage to stop doing something will make this dilemma dissipate soon allowing the proverbial dust to settle on this issue permanently.  

[Nadine]

Exactly Nadine. Like I said previously to Valpo2004 on this topic, for the right price this controversy will get resolved & all parties will be satisfied in the end eventually. 

 

"Synder won't move here until the NFL Commission gives Dan a sweetheart financial deal to make it worth his while to change the name. Money talks & for the right price Dan will play ball." --SW1.

 

I'm not tooting my own horn BTW, I just agree with you 100% that using enough money as leverage to stop doing something will make this dilemma dissipate soon allowing the proverbial dust to settle on this issue permanently.  

or financial disincentive.

Losing post season hosting would not be acceptable to either ownership or fans......less acceptable than a name change I think.

 

My highschool had the name Indians and changed it about 30 years ago I think. At the time there was nobody asking them to do it, they just decided to.

 

Things change, people move on.

[OffensivelyPC]

Good points throughout...

 

To the bolded:

 

1) Some black people aren't offended by the n-word, but there are no sports franchises using that word in their name. And if there were, I can guarantee you that they would have come under intense heat a long time ago. So just because some people aren't offended by it doesn't mean it's an appropriate name for your team. If Snyder were naming his team today, he would have to choose something other than "Redskins."

 

2) Are you sure that 90% of Native Americans don't have a problem with the word?

 

3) Just like #1, there's a difference between making fun of a group -- on the basis of religion, orientation, gender, profession, etc. -- but a good business owner wouldn't name his company after a term that some find offensive. 

 

4) Piggybacking on #3, this is the whole reason I shake my head at the whole thing. I know the PC crowd can drown out reason sometimes, but Snyder would have been better served to change the team's name before the noise got as loud as it is now. He's costing his business by not doing so. (For example, there was recently a store-front business in an urban area that fixed spiked plates into the ground in front of their store. They wanted to prevent homeless people from sleeping in front of their business, which is reasonable. This drew the ire of some people -- a vocal minority, to be sure -- and it led to protests in front of the store. So, despite the fact that it was their right to put these plates on their property in front of their store, they wound up removing them in short order, because it was costing them business, and it was hurting their reputation. I find this to be really stupid; if they had put in bike racks or something, there would have been no noise at all. But they didn't handle it in a sensitive way, people got upset, and they changed course.)

 

So for me, in all, it's not hard to accept that this is a racially insensitive term. If it were my team, I think I would have changed the name a long time ago, not because I find the term offensive, but because I think it would be good business.

1) Yes, but the N-word is universally held to be a racially motivated term with a very dark history.  Every person, black, white, or otherwise understands and intimately knows the hatred that was once associated with this word.  The word redskin doesn't have the same racial hatred embedded in the word.  Ives Goddard, who has written extensively on the topic, has written a detailed analysis on the origin of the word, where it's most common usage in the late 1700s to early 1900s was descriptive, one in which the natives themselves used to distinguish themselves from europeans, whom they called whiteskins.  How and hwen it became a racist term is uncertain, which is why no one can agree on whether it disparages natives.

 

2) In the 2004 study (and there have been others since with similar results, but different methods of study and pointed questions), yes, 90% of natives do not care.  http://www.annenbergpublicpolicycenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2004_03_redskins_09-24_pr2.pdf.  You can google it, but I haven't seen any studies that really refute this.  Even when Bruce Allen (GM who just got promoted) brought this to light, there has been nothing since then that has disputed those findings.  Even my own personal research, which I wouldn't call exhaustive, hasn't really seen much to the contrary.  Certainly nothing that would indicate any more than and 80/20 spilt, the 80% being indifferent toward the name.

 

3 and 4) Yeah, I agree with you here.  From a business perspective, you wouldn't name your team, clothes, or whatever other product you sell something to be racially disparaging, even if it was 10% of subcategory of American citizens.  And at the time, that's why I think that there was nothing racist about calling them the redskins in the beginning.  Even the logo was reportedly designed by a chief (or some high ranking) native.   I'd look it up, but you'll find it if you google the Bruce Allen story mentioned in #2. Now as the times changes adn meanings of words change, so does your business also need to change if you want to keep a competitive product.  And perhaps he could gain more support by being a bit more sensitive to the topic.  He certainly hasn't looked very empathetic when he said he'll never change and you can put "NEVER" in all caps.  I do empathize with those that find it offensive, which is why I would never refer to a native as a redskin.  I also empathize with Snyder.  It's his business, and if he chooses to be insensitive to that 10%, that's his choice, even if it makes little sense business-wise to the rest of us.  But as I said in the beginning - redskin is just a word and therefore, the Washington Redskins is just a team name and logo.  Throw in emotions, and redskin can be an extremely offensive term, or it can be a word which invokes a ton of history and at one time respect towards a culture of natives.  To me, the issue is just one of egos more than it is anything else.   

[Qwiz]

I find it funny in general how people can think it is racist. Why would a national football team choose their mascot to be something that they hate? You don't flaunt your product negatively. Do you go to the store and the apple juice is labeled as "Tastes like cow urine" or "Great for inducing vomiting"? It doesn't make sense. Context is everything. You can't just decide to make a word racist because you want to. Except you can, because fools will do whatever they want to get on the news.

A valid point. Why would someone name their franchise after something they hate. Considering the fact that Native Americans came up with the term themselves I think it may have been more of a homage then people think.

[southwest1]

1) Yes, but the N-word is universally held to be a racially motivated term with a very dark history.  Every person, black, white, or otherwise understands and intimately knows the hatred that was once associated with this word.  The word redskin doesn't have the same racial hatred embedded in the word.  Ives Goddard, who has written extensively on the topic, has written a detailed analysis on the origin of the word, where it's most common usage in the late 1700s to early 1900s was descriptive, one in which the natives themselves used to distinguish themselves from europeans, whom they called whiteskins.  How and hwen it became a racist term is uncertain, which is why no one can agree on whether it disparages natives.

 

2) In the 2004 study (and there have been others since with similar results, but different methods of study and pointed questions), yes, 90% of natives do not care.  http://www.annenbergpublicpolicycenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2004_03_redskins_09-24_pr2.pdf.  You can google it, but I haven't seen any studies that really refute this.  Even when Bruce Allen (GM who just got promoted) brought this to light, there has been nothing since then that has disputed those findings.  Even my own personal research, which I wouldn't call exhaustive, hasn't really seen much to the contrary.  Certainly nothing that would indicate any more than and 80/20 spilt, the 80% being indifferent toward the name.

 

3 and 4) Yeah, I agree with you here.  From a business perspective, you wouldn't name your team, clothes, or whatever other product you sell something to be racially disparaging, even if it was 10% of subcategory of American citizens.  And at the time, that's why I think that there was nothing racist about calling them the redskins in the beginning.  Even the logo was reportedly designed by a chief (or some high ranking) native.   I'd look it up, but you'll find it if you google the Bruce Allen story mentioned in #2. Now as the times changes adn meanings of words change, so does your business also need to change if you want to keep a competitive product.  And perhaps he could gain more support by being a bit more sensitive to the topic.  He certainly hasn't looked very empathetic when he said he'll never change and you can put "NEVER" in all caps.  I do empathize with those that find it offensive, which is why I would never refer to a native as a redskin.  I also empathize with Snyder.  It's his business, and if he chooses to be insensitive to that 10%, that's his choice, even if it makes little sense business-wise to the rest of us.  But as I said in the beginning - redskin is just a word and therefore, the Washington Redskins is just a team name and logo.  Throw in emotions, and redskin can be an extremely offensive term, or it can be a word which invokes a ton of history and at one time respect towards a culture of natives.  To me, the issue is just one of egos more than it is anything else.   

A very well written post OPC. My only slight concern with it is this sentence: "The word redskin doesn't have the same racial hatred embedded in the word...redskin is just a word and therefore, the Washington Redskins is just a team name and logo." 

 

I would need to hear from roughy 100,000 Indians first before I can begin to reach a consensus as to whether or not enough tribes view Redskin the word in the same context as the N word is to the African American community. Also, if enough people are offended by the use of the word "Redskin" trademark or not the name will change.  Just like if enough people die on a certain section of a road due to a dangerous merging lane or blind corner eventually the DOT is gonna rip up the concrete & fix the problem by eliminating it. 

 

Other than that, this is a well crafted response OPC. Nice work! 

[OffensivelyPC]

A very well written post OPC. My only slight concern with it is this sentence: "The word redskin doesn't have the same racial hatred embedded in the word...redskin is just a word and therefore, the Washington Redskins is just a team name and logo." 

 

I would need to hear from roughy 100,000 Indians first before I can begin to reach a consensus as to whether or not enough tribes view Redskin the word in the same context as the N word is to the African American community. Also, if enough people are offended by the use of the word "Redskin" trademark or not the name will change.  Just like if enough people die on a certain section of a road due to a dangerous merging lane or blind corner eventually the DOT is gonna rip up the concrete & fix the problem by eliminating it. 

 

Other than that, this is a well crafted response OPC. Nice work! 

Well, today that is certainly true.  I was speaking more to the word at its inception.  The word "redskin" was used in many treaties between the americans and natives.  As said before, words change along with their meanings.  If there were a multitude of tribes that said that word today has a more derogatory meaning behind it, I'm all ears and I certainly wouldn't say the word is offensive as it relates to those natives today.  But back then, I don't think the word, in its inception (or at least introduction into the common vernacular at the time) was taken as offensive.

[braveheartcolt]

So, if I complain about being called a 'Brit', I have a right to have the word either removed from the English language, or I can sue people for calling me it? Is that how it's all going to work out? In that case, why don't we just ban all colours for our vocabulary, just in case we offend someone.

[Dustin]

I find it weird that people don't see a team named referencing the color of a ethnicity's skin as inappropriate.

 

If an expansion team wanted to name their team the Los Angeles Blackskins with their mascot being a black dude, none of you would have a problem with that?

[Dustin]

So, if I complain about being called a 'Brit', I have a right to have the word either removed from the English language, or I can sue people for calling me it? Is that how it's all going to work out? In that case, why don't we just ban all colours for our vocabulary, just in case we offend someone.

 

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/strawman

[southwest1]

Well, today that is certainly true.  I was speaking more to the word at its inception.  The word "redskin" was used in many treaties between the americans and natives.  As said before, words change along with their meanings.  If there were a multitude of tribes that said that word today has a more derogatory meaning behind it, I'm all ears and I certainly wouldn't say the word is offensive as it relates to those natives today.  But back then, I don't think the word, in its inception (or at least introduction into the common vernacular at the time) was taken as offensive.

Yes, I know you were charting the evolution of the word redskin over time. I get that & you did a masterful job articulating your case to keep the name based purely on the epistemology of where the word came from. Yes, you are also correct that treaties did in fact use the term redskin in them, but these same treaties were written by the white man who often forced tribes to sign documents that they could not read or the US government said put an X on this line & we will give you a ton of free whiskey to celebrate the occasion along with smallpox disease ridden blankets but come you can trust us we have nothing but the best intentions here. [Wink. wink. Not really.] 

 

I will concede OPC openly that if SW1 went out & interviewed various tribes in the DC area & only a tiny fraction took offense to it. The name does not change either. If the American Indian population says keep "redskins" as the NFL name we keep it. My point here is this: Don't go out interviewing people with a pre determined thesis. Let the vote speak for itself 1 way or another. Just because a result might not end in a believed fashion of a scholar, they do not have a right to lay a guilt trip on people or shame them into changing the name if the Indian public says "We have no problem with the term redskin in an NFL team context."

[southwest1]

I find it weird that people don't see a team named referencing the color of a ethnicity's skin as inappropriate.

 

If an expansion team wanted to name their team the Los Angeles Blackskins with their mascot being a black dude, none of you would have a problem with that?

You do make a valid point Dustin. "Red Skin" is essentially isolating a group of people purely on their color of their skin alone as opposed their contributions or content of their character. Typically, team names are not selected by their color alone like say for instance the caucasian wildcats or the polynesian clydesdales hypothetically speaking. Perhaps, that is the real issue here: An NFL name that demeans a race of people by quarantining them symbolically by their pigmentation alone. 

 

Well said Dustin! 

[Vance]

I find it weird that people don't see a team named referencing the color of a ethnicity's skin as inappropriate.

 

If an expansion team wanted to name their team the Los Angeles Blackskins with their mascot being a black dude, none of you would have a problem with that?

 

What if that team was owned by a black man who named the team?