Once again the term "racist" and "racism" is misused and its getting rather disgusting. There is nothing about the football team name "redskin", "Braves" or "Indians" that denigrate another race/creed/ethinicity, those names represent team names.
rac·ism [rey-siz-uhm] Show IPA
noun
1.
a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others.
2.
a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination.
3.
hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.
None of those teams names remotely fits into this definition.
I'm not sure why these people who object to these team names do not object actors playing ANY role that not their self. When Mel Gibson plays a Scotsman in Brave-heart, should Scot's be offended......and that has a hellvua lot more social and political implications than a pro sports team does.
I promise you, you call a team "rednecks"....you will not have this kind of outcry from white people. Stopping paying attention to this fabricated "racism" and focus on the real stuff.
Of course it's a problem of perception - in a perfect world words would only hold meaning to their context - that's why people watch their words because of perception not because their words necessarily mean what they might imply.
(In fact implication wouldn't exist in a perfect contextual world)
And why do you want to foster the perception that the word "Redskins" is a racial pejorative? Seems counterproductive if you ask me.
"I have no idea what it's like not to be a straight white male, and the experiences of others are irrelevant." -Conservative Motto
Calling someone a Commie is flaming and must be stopped, but turning the word Conservative into a loaded pejorative and using it over and over again is perfectly acceptable.
Well if the dictionary defines it as offensive slang then it must be true. No chance anyone pushed for that post the civil rights act. It's not like that would help someone gain victim status and therefor special privileges. "we as a society" you mean part of society that is socially inept "have come to the consensus" you mean have decided the vocal minority should be allowed to control how other speak and have will take legal actions against those who don't conform to our totalitarian ways. I'm suggesting this is a bad idea.
It's nice that you fixate on my citing a dictionary, but can this conspiracy theory of yours account in any way for all the other stuff I said about how the word is used? The dictionary says it's offensive because the lexicographers, doing their jobs, have noted that the word is not used in polite contexts, and when people speak or write the word, they are expressing racist sentiment. This is exactly the same reasoning that they use when they label "n*****" offensive. This is not the decision of a vocal minority. The vocal minority here is you, trying to dictate in spite of all linguistic observations that the word is perfectly neutral.
Look, I'm no fan of political correctness either. I will happily join you in decrying liberal revisionist nonsense like "differently abled" and "person of color". But that's not what's happening here. "Redskin" is actually a very rude word. And I'm staggered that you can be so willfully blind to this fact. Look at the people in this thread saying the word is offensive. Me, FoxBlade, bLatch, Fluffy Bunny, Vaclav - these are not the usual suspects of our far left here. These are representatives of a wide consensus on the actual regular meaning of the word.
And why do you want to foster the perception that the word "Redskins" is a racial pejorative? Seems counterproductive if you ask me.
It's not a matter of "fostering". It's a matter of recognizing fact. People in fact perceive the word to be offensive. If you want to change that perception, then you're the one who is trying to "control how others speak".
The dictionary says it's offensive because the lexicographers, doing their jobs, have noted that the word is not used in polite contexts, and when people speak or write the word, they are expressing racist sentiment.
What racist sentiment are the Washington Redskins expressing exactly?
Hint: Its how you use the word. Not the word you use. Which is why your answer is convoluted and not applicable to this debate. Racism has no place in this discussion whether you think the name is offensive or not. There is no indication the Washington Redskins use the name in a racist context unless of course you have evidence the Redskins harbor this resentment or dislike of native Americans. Even if the name is offensive, its not "racist".
This is exactly the same reasoning that they use when they label "n*****" offensive.
What about when blacks use it as a term of endearment? Is it a "racist" word then? Once again this demonstrates the use of the word mattering more than the word it self.
It's not a matter of "fostering". It's a matter of recognizing fact. People in fact perceive the word to be offensive. If you want to change that perception, then you're the one who is trying to "control how others speak".
BTW: I'm offended when ever someone says white people or "majority" to describe me. I do not think it accurately reflects or portrays me or white people. There is a point where this **** just gets absurd. You will never not offend everyone.
Hint: Its how you use the word. Not the word you use.
Language works because words have generally accepted meanings. If I say "dog" you understand that I'm talking about a specimen of Canis lupus familiaris. I can't just decide that I'm going to use "dog" in a different way such that it means Felis catus instead.
What about when blacks use it as a term of endearment? Is it a "racist" word then?
In my opinion, yes, their usage is ill-advised. And even if you disagree with this assessment, the lexicographers have identified the term of endearment as a separate usage. Sometimes words have more than one meaning, after all. But do you know what word doesn't? "Redskin".
BTW: I'm offended when ever someone says white people or "majority" to describe me.
Does your offense represent a broad consensus among English-language speakers as to the meaning and connotation of the words, such that they are generally avoided in polite writing and conversation?
Language works because words have generally accepted meanings. If I say "dog" you understand that I'm talking about a specimen of Canis lupus familiaris. I can't just decide that I'm going to use "dog" in a different way such that it means Felis catus instead.
Talk about irony. When we talk about the Washington Reskins we are not talking about Indians, Native Americans, or any race. We are talking about a football team. This usage has a broad consensus.
So... you're objecting to the use of the word "racist" and not to the substance of the objection (that the term "redskin" is rude)?
I refute half the premise. I do not think the term Redskin when used as a sports team name is "rude" (so obviously I would not object to it) and yes, I do object to the term "racism" and "racist" when used in conjunction with the the Washington Redskins team name while no evidence, empirical or otherwise, is demonstrated.
Does this not strike you as ironic in any way?
No comment.
In my opinion, yes, their usage is ill-advised.
That is pretty damn subjective and arbitrary trying to decide whats words are advisable or not with two third parties.
And even if you disagree with this assessment, the lexicographers have identified the term of endearment as a separate usage.
Yes, once again, we are talking about usage having a greater significaganee than the word it self.
Sometimes words have more than one meaning, after all. But do you know what word doesn't? "Redskin".
I think of a football team or a potato when I hear that word. Redskins has more than one meaning and usage other than the offensive one you've seem to focus on. Most people would have to go looking for a reason for the Washington Redskins name to be offensive. Just like I can go find a reason for any word in the world to be offensive to somebody.
Does your offense represent a broad consensus among English-language speakers as to the meaning and connotation of the words, such that they are generally avoided in polite writing and conversation?
What? Are you telling me, its the broad consensus among English-language speakers to have any inclination to avoid using the term "Washington Redskins" in a conversation because it's deemed impolite? What about redskin potatoes? To most English speaking people the word redskins in the context of football or potatoes has no offensive characteristics except maybe other NFC East teams but that has little to do with the name and everything to do with rivalries. This PC stuff about the team names is trying to turn words that have no offensive connotations to most people into words with derogatory meanings. You can not tell me most, if not all people talking about the 'skins are thinking about Native Americans, let alone thinking of NA's in a derogatory sense.
You are essentially equating fans chanting "Redskins" (at football games) with them chanting "white pride" or "******s" and there is no similarities in usage, intent or sentiment. When a football player says he is proud to be a Redskin, he is not talking about race, creed or ethnicity. There is no evidence showing the Washington Redskins name having ever been used to demean anyone, let alone Native Americans.
The N-word has many different meanings to people as well - some of which are appropriately derogatory (i.e. used as a term for lazy folk of any color) - one negative use is generally enough to blacklist it from any.
And "Redskin potatoes" are never how Red Potatoes are referenced in the parts of the nation I've dealt with in grocery. (Apparently looking online that's not a universal truth however - but it certainly is true for all the NE grocery regions I've been involved with)
Am I supposed to think of an Indian when i hear the term "redskin"? Am I supposed to think it's an offensive word then associate that word with an Indian? Why would I do that and why would anyone ask me to do that?
hell, come to think of it, when i'm talking baseball with my buddy, when we talk about the Indian's i do not think about Indians, i think about Jim Thome and the players on the team.
What you're supposed to think isn't relevant - some people being oblivious to a word being offensive doesn't suddenly turn it non-offensive.
A word's offensiveness is measured by its POTENTIAL to offend to those that are set off by that word, not it's baseline. When dictionary.com and the like label it as offensive, odds are 100% that it's offensive - they don't put the "offensive" label commonly.
I personally find the word ******* confusing rather than offensive myself since it's a really stupid word to use derogatorily towards someone, but I still acknowledge it's offensive as a whole even though it's not offensive to ME.
What you're supposed to think isn't relevant - some people being oblivious to a word being offensive doesn't suddenly turn it non-offensive.
A word's offensiveness is measured by its POTENTIAL to offend to those that are set off by that word, not it's baseline. When dictionary.com and the like label it as offensive, odds are 100% that it's offensive - they don't put the "offensive" label commonly.
Where is the line where people are stupid with this **** and the people who have legitimate gripes? Further, show me where in mainstream America where talking about the Washington Redskins football team is considered disparaging Native Americans for the purpose of racial superiority or used to demean Native Americans.
The simple fact is, when most, if not all people have a discussion about the Washington Redskins, there is no correlation to Native Americans, offensive or otherwise
I can not imagine watching Jeff Foxworthy talking about rednecks and finding it offensive to white people or southerners...and I'm a southerner...not to mention the people who use it to label racist.
What? Are you telling me, its the broad consensus among English-language speakers to have any inclination to avoid using the term "Washington Redskins" in a conversation because it's deemed impolite?
Don't be cute. I'm telling you that it's the broad consensus among English-language speakers to avoid using the word "redskin", and that the name "Washington Redskins" defies that convention by using the word.
Would you turn in a draft of a term paper or a news report or other respectable publication that used the word "redskins" to refer to Native Americans? I don't know, maybe you're crazy enough to do it, but you should at least recognize that the vast majority of Americans - everyday, mainstream Americans - wouldn't, any more than they'd refer to African Americans as "n*****s". And yet this is exactly what the Washington Redskins are doing.
To most English speaking people the word redskins in the context of football or potatoes has no offensive characteristics except maybe other NFC East teams but that has little to do with the name and everything to do with rivalries. This PC stuff about the team names is trying to turn words that have no offensive connotations to most people into words with derogatory meanings. You can not tell me most, if not all people talking about the 'skins are thinking about Native Americans, let alone thinking of NA's in a derogatory sense.
You are essentially equating fans chanting "Redskins" (at football games) with them chanting "white pride" or "******s" and there is no similarities in usage, intent or sentiment. When a football player says he is proud to be a Redskin, he is not talking about race, creed or ethnicity. There is no evidence showing the Washington Redskins name having ever been used to demean anyone, let alone Native Americans.
So your argument is that the word "Redskin" here is purely indicative of a football team and has nothing to do with Native Americans? I suppose you think that the logo of a coppery-complexioned man with feathers in his hair is just strange coincidence? This is just casuistic nonsense. Could I name a football team the Kalamazoo N****** and have a black guy as a mascot, as long as I argued that I was using the word "n*****" purely to refer to the team itself and wasn't talking about race? Or would it be obvious to everybody that I was lying through my teeth and actually was referring to the race, because sports teams, in naming themselves after other things, are self-evidently referring to the things?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
"In a land of freedom we are held hostage by the tyranny of political correctness,"
Redskins Quarterback, DC Hero, and national sports icon: RG III
"In the land of rationality we are held hostage by the tyranny of hyperbole."
Internet Lurker, Texas Terror, and mtg debate icon: Algebra
I don't see a single thing that's rational about your position. devoting time and energy trying to force a beloved franchise to change its name because it makes you feel progressive isn't rational.
Don't be cute. I'm telling you that it's the broad consensus among English-language speakers to avoid using the word "redskin", and that the name "Washington Redskins" defies that convention by using the word.
You know what is amazing? The Washington Redskins has effectively rebranded a word that reportedly had a derogatory meaning and turned it into one that represented a football team. I imagine before when some one said the word redskin the prevailing thought was of a native american....I've seen no evidence to suggest that Redskin, outside of the football team or potato is a prevalent term in our lexicon. It may be in the dictionary but its not a term I've ever heard used other than describing a football team or potato.
Would you turn in a draft of a term paper or a news report or other respectable publication that used the word "redskins" to refer to Native Americans?
Straw-man. We are not talking about Native Americans or referring to NA's. We are talking about a football team. That is the context of the term. The issue is the football teams name not how society or any other entiity is refering to NA's. There is no correlation. If you tell me that when you hear the term redskin in context of a discussion about a football team and think about native Americans, I'd have to wonder about your thought process.
I don't know, maybe you're crazy enough to do it, but you should at least recognize that the vast majority of Americans - everyday, mainstream Americans - wouldn't, any more than they'd refer to African Americans as "n*****s". And yet this is exactly what the Washington Redskins are doing.
Again, I and most people never think of Native Americans, or ethnicity for that matter, when discussing the Redskins in context of the Washington Redskins.
You are trying your damnedest to suggest the Washington Redskins use of Redskins is talking about anything other than their football team name. There no evidence the Redskins are using the term in a demeaning way and the only example you can provide is a an alternative usage meaning something totally different than when used in the context the Redskins intended which brings upon no discussion about NA's what so ever in its conventional use. The team is labeling their team. They are not labeling a race. They are not labeling NA's.
So your argument is that the word "Redskin" here is purely indicative of a football team and has nothing to do with Native Americans? I suppose you think that the logo of a coppery-complexioned man with feathers in his hair is just strange coincidence? This is just casuistic nonsense.
This is a fair point, however if you think of a Native American when talking about the football team, I have to say you would be in the minority and you really do not care about football and just looking for **** talk about. Let's be honest here.....we talk about Redskins, the furthermost things from our minds are NA's.
Could I name a football team the Kalamazoo N****** and have a black guy as a mascot, as long as I argued that I was using the word "n*****" purely to refer to the team itself and wasn't talking about race?
You could (freedom of speech and everything) but you are comparing a provocative and still widely accepted defamation with one that does not have the same correlation anymore. The Washington Redskins usage has transcended the dingerating elements of the term as obvious by most Americans do not think of a Native American when discussing the football team. I'm not even sure how prevalent that term is as an insult....I lived in OK with significant amount of NA's and I've never heard anyone use the term to describe them...but some of those farmers still use ******. As much as you do not want to admit, Redskins do not have the same context or sentiment that ****** does. Not in todays society.
"In a land of freedom we are held hostage by the tyranny of political correctness,"
Redskins Quarterback, DC Hero, and national sports icon: RG III
"In the land of rationality we are held hostage by the tyranny of hyperbole."
Internet Lurker, Texas Terror, and mtg debate icon: Algebra
I don't see a single thing that's rational about your position. devoting time and energy trying to force a beloved franchise to change its name because it makes you feel progressive isn't rational.
It actually regressive and reinforces the the derogatory nature of the word instead of embracing the non-offensive characterization most people now have of it.
I would bet all my money that significantly more people associate the word with a football team than a NA and that's grown from an association that, reportedly, was mostly derogatory back in the day.
I guess it's not good enough changing a negative term to a non-negative term....we must make sure all derogatory names stay derogatory names.
All you have to do is ask yourself is if the term has become more derogatory over time or less....the answer is obviously less as ignorance and stereotypes are dying out not to mention people are using the word in a different context to further erode the derogatory meaning.
Straw-man. We are not talking about Native Americans or referring to NA's. We are talking about a football team. That is the context of the term. The issue is the football teams name not how society or any other entiity is refering to NA's. There is no correlation. If you tell me that when you hear the term redskin in context of a discussion about a football team and think about native Americans, I'd have to wonder about your thought process.
Of course there's a correlation. The team didn't just randomly generate a name and come up with the word "Redskin", any more than they just randomly threw paint at a canvas and came up with the logo of an Indian. They chose the name because they wanted to refer to Indians. The whole point of giving teams figurative names like "Lions" or "Giants" or "Falcons" is to evoke the imagery of the figure. If Redskins' name only referred to a football team, it would be "The Washington Football Players", and their logo would be a guy in a football helmet. (Which would actually be pretty funny.)
Think of it this way: if your hometown were getting a new sports team, would you rather they be named the "Thunderbolts" or the "Doormats"? If you have a preference on the matter, then you have conceded that a team name refers to something besides the team itself.
I'm not even sure how prevalent that term is as an insult....I lived in OK with significant amount of NA's and I've never heard anyone use the term to describe them...but some of those farmers still use ******. As much as you do not want to admit, Redskins do not have the same context or sentiment that ****** does. Not in todays society.
No, I'll admit it. "Redskin" is not used in exactly the same way that "n*****" is. But neither is "dago", "mick", or "****". They all have different popularity levels in different segments of society. That they are not all used in exactly the same way does not mean that they are not insulting. They are all insulting because they are all avoided in polite speech, and when you ask speakers why they're avoiding the term, they say it's because they're insulting. It is this fact that they are insulting that makes the comparison valid, not their actual popularity.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Of course there's a correlation. The team didn't just randomly generate a name and come up with the word "Redskin", any more than they just randomly threw paint at a canvas and came up with the logo of an Indian. They chose the name because they wanted to refer to Indians. The whole point of giving teams figurative names like "Lions" or "Giants" or "Falcons" is to evoke the imagery of the figure. If Redskins' name only referred to a football team, it would be "The Washington Football Players", and their logo would be a guy in a football helmet. (Which would actually be pretty funny.)
I was on a football team named the "Bears". I did not think of myself as a bear in sense of an animal. I did not think of our rivals as actual eagles or demons and neither did anyone else because, well, that would be silly.
The problem with this argument, Billy, is that it is purely defensive. If there is no meaning or symbolism to a name then that's NOT an affirmative reason to keep it as it is. It actually means that it's largely irrelevant what they are named so there's no reason not to change the name.
And for those of you who have never heard "Redskin" being used derogatorily towards indigenous persons it is likely because you are not one. I've heard the term used for myself as well as several members of my family. It's ****ing disgusting.
The "I'm white so it doesn't offend me what we call other races" thread in here is thinly veiled.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Asking people to remove quotes in their signatures is tyranny! If I can't say something just because someone's feelings are hurt then no one would ever be able to say anything! Political correctness is stupid.
The problem with this argument, Billy, is that it is purely defensive. If there is no meaning or symbolism to a name then that's NOT an affirmative reason to keep it as it is. It actually means that it's largely irrelevant what they are named so there's no reason not to change the name.
And for those of you who have never heard "Redskin" being used derogatorily towards indigenous persons it is likely because you are not one. I've heard the term used for myself as well as several members of my family. It's ****ing disgusting.
Well, the Redskins nor are their fans calling you that. Your associating a team name with the ignorance behavior others. Use of a word and intent means everything. On another note. I've been called honkey, redneck (in deragotory way) and I do not get wrapped in what someone I do not know calls me....now is this was something that occurs on a daily basis, I could understand but I'm almost positive you do not hear it every day as I'm well traveled and have rarely heard the name used for something else other than the description of a football team. You will not stop everyone from being ignorant....The Redskins are not using the name to insult you and taking it as an insult is a waste of your time.
I won't acknowledge your premise that they should change their name because of lack of reason not to do it. There are plenty of reasons. Namely a commercial brand they've built for years.
No one's saying they should be legally obligated to - the thread is about if they should under any circumstance - most of us in support of changing (if not all) are in support of them VOLUNTARILY doing it if they wish.
You know, similar to many other rebrandings that have happened in history. There's "the right thing to do" and the "mandated thing to do" - the majority are suggesting it's the right thing to do, not that it should be mandated.
Personally I could care less, I only weighed in because of some implications that Redskin isn't offensive to some people - when as someone who dealt with offensive behavior disturbingly regularly I know better. (Although I will say, I never had the term as part of a complaint - but it was absolutely on my "watchwords" list)
If you think the term "redneck" is in any way akin to the level of a racial slur like "redskin" you're crazy. Even if Redneck is derogatory (which it is) it was not used to historically disparage an entire race of persons and then utilized to mark those bodies as savages to justify their extermination. Ever.
And do not act like the team name is innocent from historical references. It's ****ing not, it's built upon them. It is NOT an accident that they are named the Redskins. So no, it is not just me "associating the name with the ignorance of others" it was a calculated choice made by the person(s) that originally named the team.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Asking people to remove quotes in their signatures is tyranny! If I can't say something just because someone's feelings are hurt then no one would ever be able to say anything! Political correctness is stupid.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
noun
1.
a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others.
2.
a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination.
3.
hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.
None of those teams names remotely fits into this definition.
I'm not sure why these people who object to these team names do not object actors playing ANY role that not their self. When Mel Gibson plays a Scotsman in Brave-heart, should Scot's be offended......and that has a hellvua lot more social and political implications than a pro sports team does.
I promise you, you call a team "rednecks"....you will not have this kind of outcry from white people. Stopping paying attention to this fabricated "racism" and focus on the real stuff.
calling liberals loons=not okay
The standard to which the forum moderators apply the rules here.
And why do you want to foster the perception that the word "Redskins" is a racial pejorative? Seems counterproductive if you ask me.
Flame infraction. - Blinking Spirit
Calling someone a Commie is flaming and must be stopped, but turning the word Conservative into a loaded pejorative and using it over and over again is perfectly acceptable.
Look, I'm no fan of political correctness either. I will happily join you in decrying liberal revisionist nonsense like "differently abled" and "person of color". But that's not what's happening here. "Redskin" is actually a very rude word. And I'm staggered that you can be so willfully blind to this fact. Look at the people in this thread saying the word is offensive. Me, FoxBlade, bLatch, Fluffy Bunny, Vaclav - these are not the usual suspects of our far left here. These are representatives of a wide consensus on the actual regular meaning of the word.
It's not a matter of "fostering". It's a matter of recognizing fact. People in fact perceive the word to be offensive. If you want to change that perception, then you're the one who is trying to "control how others speak".
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
What racist sentiment are the Washington Redskins expressing exactly?
Hint: Its how you use the word. Not the word you use. Which is why your answer is convoluted and not applicable to this debate. Racism has no place in this discussion whether you think the name is offensive or not. There is no indication the Washington Redskins use the name in a racist context unless of course you have evidence the Redskins harbor this resentment or dislike of native Americans. Even if the name is offensive, its not "racist".
What about when blacks use it as a term of endearment? Is it a "racist" word then? Once again this demonstrates the use of the word mattering more than the word it self.
BTW: I'm offended when ever someone says white people or "majority" to describe me. I do not think it accurately reflects or portrays me or white people. There is a point where this **** just gets absurd. You will never not offend everyone.
calling liberals loons=not okay
The standard to which the forum moderators apply the rules here.
So... you're objecting to the use of the word "racist" and not to the substance of the objection (that the term "redskin" is rude)?
Does this not strike you as ironic in any way?
In my opinion, yes, their usage is ill-advised. And even if you disagree with this assessment, the lexicographers have identified the term of endearment as a separate usage. Sometimes words have more than one meaning, after all. But do you know what word doesn't? "Redskin".
Does your offense represent a broad consensus among English-language speakers as to the meaning and connotation of the words, such that they are generally avoided in polite writing and conversation?
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Life would be infinitely easier for everyone if people just learned not to let pointless things bother them.
Talk about irony. When we talk about the Washington Reskins we are not talking about Indians, Native Americans, or any race. We are talking about a football team. This usage has a broad consensus.
I refute half the premise. I do not think the term Redskin when used as a sports team name is "rude" (so obviously I would not object to it) and yes, I do object to the term "racism" and "racist" when used in conjunction with the the Washington Redskins team name while no evidence, empirical or otherwise, is demonstrated.
No comment.
That is pretty damn subjective and arbitrary trying to decide whats words are advisable or not with two third parties.
Yes, once again, we are talking about usage having a greater significaganee than the word it self.
I think of a football team or a potato when I hear that word. Redskins has more than one meaning and usage other than the offensive one you've seem to focus on. Most people would have to go looking for a reason for the Washington Redskins name to be offensive. Just like I can go find a reason for any word in the world to be offensive to somebody.
What? Are you telling me, its the broad consensus among English-language speakers to have any inclination to avoid using the term "Washington Redskins" in a conversation because it's deemed impolite? What about redskin potatoes? To most English speaking people the word redskins in the context of football or potatoes has no offensive characteristics except maybe other NFC East teams but that has little to do with the name and everything to do with rivalries. This PC stuff about the team names is trying to turn words that have no offensive connotations to most people into words with derogatory meanings. You can not tell me most, if not all people talking about the 'skins are thinking about Native Americans, let alone thinking of NA's in a derogatory sense.
You are essentially equating fans chanting "Redskins" (at football games) with them chanting "white pride" or "******s" and there is no similarities in usage, intent or sentiment. When a football player says he is proud to be a Redskin, he is not talking about race, creed or ethnicity. There is no evidence showing the Washington Redskins name having ever been used to demean anyone, let alone Native Americans.
calling liberals loons=not okay
The standard to which the forum moderators apply the rules here.
And "Redskin potatoes" are never how Red Potatoes are referenced in the parts of the nation I've dealt with in grocery. (Apparently looking online that's not a universal truth however - but it certainly is true for all the NE grocery regions I've been involved with)
Re: People misusing the term Vanilla to describe a flying, unleash (sometimes trample) critter.
Am I supposed to think of an Indian when i hear the term "redskin"? Am I supposed to think it's an offensive word then associate that word with an Indian? Why would I do that and why would anyone ask me to do that?
hell, come to think of it, when i'm talking baseball with my buddy, when we talk about the Indian's i do not think about Indians, i think about Jim Thome and the players on the team.
calling liberals loons=not okay
The standard to which the forum moderators apply the rules here.
A word's offensiveness is measured by its POTENTIAL to offend to those that are set off by that word, not it's baseline. When dictionary.com and the like label it as offensive, odds are 100% that it's offensive - they don't put the "offensive" label commonly.
I personally find the word ******* confusing rather than offensive myself since it's a really stupid word to use derogatorily towards someone, but I still acknowledge it's offensive as a whole even though it's not offensive to ME.
Re: People misusing the term Vanilla to describe a flying, unleash (sometimes trample) critter.
Where is the line where people are stupid with this **** and the people who have legitimate gripes? Further, show me where in mainstream America where talking about the Washington Redskins football team is considered disparaging Native Americans for the purpose of racial superiority or used to demean Native Americans.
The simple fact is, when most, if not all people have a discussion about the Washington Redskins, there is no correlation to Native Americans, offensive or otherwise
I can not imagine watching Jeff Foxworthy talking about rednecks and finding it offensive to white people or southerners...and I'm a southerner...not to mention the people who use it to label racist.
calling liberals loons=not okay
The standard to which the forum moderators apply the rules here.
Would you turn in a draft of a term paper or a news report or other respectable publication that used the word "redskins" to refer to Native Americans? I don't know, maybe you're crazy enough to do it, but you should at least recognize that the vast majority of Americans - everyday, mainstream Americans - wouldn't, any more than they'd refer to African Americans as "n*****s". And yet this is exactly what the Washington Redskins are doing.
An irrelevant homonym. It's like the word "*****rdly" - doesn't actually have anything to do with the controversial term.
So your argument is that the word "Redskin" here is purely indicative of a football team and has nothing to do with Native Americans? I suppose you think that the logo of a coppery-complexioned man with feathers in his hair is just strange coincidence? This is just casuistic nonsense. Could I name a football team the Kalamazoo N****** and have a black guy as a mascot, as long as I argued that I was using the word "n*****" purely to refer to the team itself and wasn't talking about race? Or would it be obvious to everybody that I was lying through my teeth and actually was referring to the race, because sports teams, in naming themselves after other things, are self-evidently referring to the things?
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Redskins Quarterback, DC Hero, and national sports icon: RG III
"In the land of rationality we are held hostage by the tyranny of hyperbole."
Internet Lurker, Texas Terror, and mtg debate icon: Algebra
I don't see a single thing that's rational about your position. devoting time and energy trying to force a beloved franchise to change its name because it makes you feel progressive isn't rational.
You know what is amazing? The Washington Redskins has effectively rebranded a word that reportedly had a derogatory meaning and turned it into one that represented a football team. I imagine before when some one said the word redskin the prevailing thought was of a native american....I've seen no evidence to suggest that Redskin, outside of the football team or potato is a prevalent term in our lexicon. It may be in the dictionary but its not a term I've ever heard used other than describing a football team or potato.
Straw-man. We are not talking about Native Americans or referring to NA's. We are talking about a football team. That is the context of the term. The issue is the football teams name not how society or any other entiity is refering to NA's. There is no correlation. If you tell me that when you hear the term redskin in context of a discussion about a football team and think about native Americans, I'd have to wonder about your thought process.
Again, I and most people never think of Native Americans, or ethnicity for that matter, when discussing the Redskins in context of the Washington Redskins.
You are trying your damnedest to suggest the Washington Redskins use of Redskins is talking about anything other than their football team name. There no evidence the Redskins are using the term in a demeaning way and the only example you can provide is a an alternative usage meaning something totally different than when used in the context the Redskins intended which brings upon no discussion about NA's what so ever in its conventional use. The team is labeling their team. They are not labeling a race. They are not labeling NA's.
This is a fair point, however if you think of a Native American when talking about the football team, I have to say you would be in the minority and you really do not care about football and just looking for **** talk about. Let's be honest here.....we talk about Redskins, the furthermost things from our minds are NA's.
You could (freedom of speech and everything) but you are comparing a provocative and still widely accepted defamation with one that does not have the same correlation anymore. The Washington Redskins usage has transcended the dingerating elements of the term as obvious by most Americans do not think of a Native American when discussing the football team. I'm not even sure how prevalent that term is as an insult....I lived in OK with significant amount of NA's and I've never heard anyone use the term to describe them...but some of those farmers still use ******. As much as you do not want to admit, Redskins do not have the same context or sentiment that ****** does. Not in todays society.
calling liberals loons=not okay
The standard to which the forum moderators apply the rules here.
It actually regressive and reinforces the the derogatory nature of the word instead of embracing the non-offensive characterization most people now have of it.
I would bet all my money that significantly more people associate the word with a football team than a NA and that's grown from an association that, reportedly, was mostly derogatory back in the day.
I guess it's not good enough changing a negative term to a non-negative term....we must make sure all derogatory names stay derogatory names.
All you have to do is ask yourself is if the term has become more derogatory over time or less....the answer is obviously less as ignorance and stereotypes are dying out not to mention people are using the word in a different context to further erode the derogatory meaning.
calling liberals loons=not okay
The standard to which the forum moderators apply the rules here.
Think of it this way: if your hometown were getting a new sports team, would you rather they be named the "Thunderbolts" or the "Doormats"? If you have a preference on the matter, then you have conceded that a team name refers to something besides the team itself.
No, I'll admit it. "Redskin" is not used in exactly the same way that "n*****" is. But neither is "dago", "mick", or "****". They all have different popularity levels in different segments of society. That they are not all used in exactly the same way does not mean that they are not insulting. They are all insulting because they are all avoided in polite speech, and when you ask speakers why they're avoiding the term, they say it's because they're insulting. It is this fact that they are insulting that makes the comparison valid, not their actual popularity.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
I was on a football team named the "Bears". I did not think of myself as a bear in sense of an animal. I did not think of our rivals as actual eagles or demons and neither did anyone else because, well, that would be silly.
calling liberals loons=not okay
The standard to which the forum moderators apply the rules here.
You'll never see the Denver Lemmings or anything like that after all.
Re: People misusing the term Vanilla to describe a flying, unleash (sometimes trample) critter.
no I'm not. You nor I think of a duck when talking about the oregon ducks.
calling liberals loons=not okay
The standard to which the forum moderators apply the rules here.
And for those of you who have never heard "Redskin" being used derogatorily towards indigenous persons it is likely because you are not one. I've heard the term used for myself as well as several members of my family. It's ****ing disgusting.
The "I'm white so it doesn't offend me what we call other races" thread in here is thinly veiled.
Well, the Redskins nor are their fans calling you that. Your associating a team name with the ignorance behavior others. Use of a word and intent means everything. On another note. I've been called honkey, redneck (in deragotory way) and I do not get wrapped in what someone I do not know calls me....now is this was something that occurs on a daily basis, I could understand but I'm almost positive you do not hear it every day as I'm well traveled and have rarely heard the name used for something else other than the description of a football team. You will not stop everyone from being ignorant....The Redskins are not using the name to insult you and taking it as an insult is a waste of your time.
I won't acknowledge your premise that they should change their name because of lack of reason not to do it. There are plenty of reasons. Namely a commercial brand they've built for years.
calling liberals loons=not okay
The standard to which the forum moderators apply the rules here.
You know, similar to many other rebrandings that have happened in history. There's "the right thing to do" and the "mandated thing to do" - the majority are suggesting it's the right thing to do, not that it should be mandated.
Personally I could care less, I only weighed in because of some implications that Redskin isn't offensive to some people - when as someone who dealt with offensive behavior disturbingly regularly I know better. (Although I will say, I never had the term as part of a complaint - but it was absolutely on my "watchwords" list)
Re: People misusing the term Vanilla to describe a flying, unleash (sometimes trample) critter.
And do not act like the team name is innocent from historical references. It's ****ing not, it's built upon them. It is NOT an accident that they are named the Redskins. So no, it is not just me "associating the name with the ignorance of others" it was a calculated choice made by the person(s) that originally named the team.