It wasn't used as a racial slur; they never meant it to be such, and it was original done to honor a coach.
Ah yes, honoring the identity thief who pretended to be an Indian to make money and draft dodge. Regardless, this story is apocryphal. The name was chosen to maintain the native american imagery of the previous name, Braves, but not conflict with the Boston Braves baseball team. As the owner who named them said, "The fact that we have in our head coach, Lone Star Dietz, an Indian, together with several Indian players, has not, as may be suspected, inspired me to select the name Redskins."
Protests began in 88' - nearly 60 years after the team was renamed, and well into the beginning of the "pc movement" stateside. This is absolutely a product of modern, oversensitive american culture.
Also false. The National Congress of American Indians passed a resolution complaining about the name in 1968.
This is exactly my point - just because a term is too offensive or slanderous or whatever to be used in casual conversation does not make that meaning simply disappear. Certainly no one goes around calling Native Americans "redskins", just as no one goes around calling Billy a child rapist. The words still mean what they mean, and having them as a sports name doesn't change that. Billy's point is that he thinks "redskin" has someone escaped its negative meaning. Surely even if we had a Billydaman-is-a-child-rapist team for a long time, no one would forget what those words mean, but they'd think of the sports team first when hearing them. It's absurd when applied to the Redskins and absurd when applied to the Billydaman-is-a-child-rapists.
Obviously if a word has any offensive connotation or context it should not be used in coversation.
LGBT
Gay
Negro
Colored
Jew
White
Black
Brown
Red
*****
****
Homosexual
Liberal
Conservative
Republican
Democrat
Right-Wing
Left-Wing
The list can go on and on...
All have been used in an offensive manner and as slurs. Should we stop using those words?
BTW, I've never said the offensive use of the word has disappeared that is yet another of your misconceptions. I've repeatedly said a word can have multiple meanings and most people are intelligent enough to tell the difference. My use of transcend has been explained to you, quite a few times already. Because Redskins has transcended into a a name for a football team does not remove the offensive connotations when the word is used in a different context.
Its a simple matter of reality that when a person uses the term Redskins, a significant majority of the time they are talking about a football team. Its not surprising you want people to see Redskins as a term for Native Americans instead of a football team. Y
The context of the Washington Billydaman-is-a-child-rapists football team is similarly non-offensive. Once I've dragged my heels and ignored complaints for half a century, people will hear the term and think of the football team. And then it'll be a perfectly acceptable name. Sure, it'll have pictures of you as an accused child rapist on all the merchandise, but people will understand that's just a logo. It has nothing to do with the other contexts of the phrase.
The context of the Washington Billydaman-is-a-child-rapists football team is similarly non-offensive.
No, its not. You are the only one in this thread, much less the world, who thinks its football team.
Once I've dragged my heels and ignored complaints for half a century, people will hear the term and think of the football team
You will never be able to do this in today's society with out facing significant financial and social ramifications. You will get so much negative publicity that no amount of time will change the context or meaning of the the words you use to name your football team. People will see you for what you are, a vindictive person using a repetitive and obnoxious words to make a severely flawed analogy with the audacity to try and repeat a process that should of never happened in the first place. You ignorantly assume you can repeat what the Redskins did.
And then it'll be a perfectly acceptable name.
Sure, it'll have pictures of you as an accused child rapist on all the merchandise, but people will understand that's just a logo. It has nothing to do with the other contexts of the phrase.
It will never be perfectly acceptable name in today's society. Never. One, you'd have to fend off my lawsuits. More importantly,iff you think the victims of rape much less the parents of child rape victims would let you use such an ugly term to make a flawed point about how a football team should not use a term, you are rather insensitive. The sad thing is, you think its possible the change the context of child rape in today's society. It will never occur no matter how many times you say it.
Yup, that's exactly right. Now apply that reasoning to Redskins. The meanings of words don't magically disappear just because they're written on a football jersey for a few decades.
I could turn it around and say "how dare you claim that our traditional name was intended to be a slur." You can't just look at it from one side - the REASON fans are so outraged at this is because you're accusing them of being racist, when all they are are people who love a sports team.
No, I'm not accusing Washington fans of being racist, nor am I saying that the original intent of choosing the name was racist. However the fact remains that the term is a racial slur. So regardless of past intent, it should be changed now.
Yup, that's exactly right. Now apply that reasoning to Redskins. The meanings of words don't magically disappear just because they're written on a football jersey for a few decades.
No... but that's not all that happened. Redskin being used a racial slur has also fallen out of use. As I stated before the only time you hear the word anymore is old Western films, and in discussions on the football team. Kind of like how nobody uses the word gay to refer to being happy anymore. The meaning still exists but that's no longer how it is used. So unless your hypothetical also includes the majority of society using different terminology for child rape your hypothetical does not parallel Redskins.
What would you say if the N-word were to be used so much in a positive way between black people and rapers that it became socially acceptable to a lot of people to use the term? Would you still be fighting to eliminate it's use just because historically it was a slur and there were still some people that did not like it?
Redskin has no meaning other than the racial slur. That's why the team has a picture of a Native American on their helmets. That's the meaning they're using - a "redskin" is a Native American. The football team isn't changing it into a benign word - it's keeping it alive as a slur.
Sing lustily and with good courage.
Be aware of singing as if you were half dead,
or half asleep:
but lift your voice with strength.
Be no more afraid of your voice now,
nor more ashamed of its being heard,
than when you sang the songs of Satan.
No, I'm not accusing Washington fans of being racist, nor am I saying that the original intent of choosing the name was racist. However the fact remains that the term is a racial slur. So regardless of past intent, it should be changed now.
You may not be saying it directly, but consider that you're telling a person that their devoted fandom is based on a disgusting, racist premise (that they are likely unaware of until you mentioned it) - anyone would take that personally. In addition, the vast majority of everyone - native americans included - do not find the term offensive, so I'd contend that your view of the word being considered a slur in mainstream society is invalid. If numbers don't matter then, if I get a small group together, can we decide that any arbitrary word is offensive to us and campaign to get it removed from use?
Wouldnt you agree, though, that it would be better for everyone involved if we were to reclaim the word redskin and remove any derogatory meaning from it? I mean, the redskins are now engaged in quite a bit of philanthropic work, and have done NOTHING to suggest anything negative or racist about native americans outside of refusing to change their century long hertiage. I'd be willing to wager that most people had not encountered redskin as a slur, outside of hearing it from very vocal minority opposing the redskin name. If we collectively let that connotation fade into history (as it has been, slowly, for the past hundred years) - wouldn't we all be better off?
Finally - are you agreeing with me that the protests are a product of new-age sensitivity? You didn't address it in your response.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Commander Decks G MGC WB Teysa Tokens BR Wortsnort UG 23.5-No Edric URG Noncombo Animar GUB Damia Stax WBR Alesha Hatebear Recursion WBR Daddy Tariel UBR [Je]love-a Your Deck GWU Almost Critterless Enchantress WUB Sydri+Artifacts=WUB WURG Glint-Eye Combo
Redskin has no meaning other than the racial slur. That's why the team has a picture of a Native American on their helmets. That's the meaning they're using - a "redskin" is a Native American. The football team isn't changing it into a benign word - it's keeping it alive as a slur.
A Redskin is a football player. True. RGIII is a Redskin. True. Surely intelligent people think I'm calling football players and RGIII and a football team Native American.
Look, if you're too stupid to tell a Redskin from a Native American, I think the problem's on your end.
Redskin has no meaning other than the racial slur. That's why the team has a picture of a Native American on their helmets. That's the meaning they're using - a "redskin" is a Native American. The football team isn't changing it into a benign word - it's keeping it alive as a slur.
A Redskin is a football player. True. RGIII is a Redskin. True. Surely intelligent people think I'm calling football players and RGIII and a football team Native American.
Look, if you're too stupid to tell a Redskin from a Native American, I think the problem's on your end.
To be fair context matters a lot here. If I am at a bar and hear you just say "oh man a Redskin just walked in" if we are not in Washington chances are I am going to think you are a racist douche until I notice the player as well. However, I don't think anyone would say that in either context (a player or a Native American walking into a bar).
Given the economic mess here at home and the political upheaval in the Middle East/Ukraine, I find it crazy that the Redskins' name has been considered a front-and-center issue.
It looks like the PC crowd is getting their wish, because I doubt the cancellation of the trademark is getting overturned like last time.
Given the economic mess here at home and the political upheaval in the Middle East/Ukraine, I find it crazy that the Redskins' name has been considered a front-and-center issue.
It looks like the PC crowd is getting their wish, because I doubt the cancellation of the trademark is getting overturned like last time.
Man, if only the patent office spent their time fixing Ukraine.
Man, if only the patent office spent their time fixing Ukraine.
You are completely missing the point, as I expected.
As a society, everything that does not matter is what we are focused on. If it matters, we ignore it. The Redskins' name is a perfect example of just that.
Well look here... seems that the original meaning of "redskin" was no more derogatory than calling someone black (like we weren't supposed to do in the 90s but now we are).
So it's offensive because it was the word used as the description for who to kill for bounties... No different than if it became a thing to hunt down white people and the signs all described white people as Caucasian. So if we keep with this argument about words not losing their meaning... why is it ok that Redskin has lost it's real original meaning?
Well look here... seems that the original meaning of "redskin" was no more derogatory than calling someone black (like we weren't supposed to do in the 90s but now we are).
So it's offensive because it was the word used as the description for who to kill for bounties... No different than if it became a thing to hunt down white people and the signs all described white people as Caucasian. So if we keep with this argument about words not losing their meaning... why is it ok that Redskin has lost it's real original meaning?
Who do you think is arguing that words never change their meaning?
No, I'm not accusing Washington fans of being racist, nor am I saying that the original intent of choosing the name was racist. However the fact remains that the term is a racial slur. So regardless of past intent, it should be changed now.
You may not be saying it directly, but consider that you're telling a person that their devoted fandom is based on a disgusting, racist premise (that they are likely unaware of until you mentioned it) - anyone would take that personally.
I understand that people can be defensive when confronted with the idea that they're doing something wrong. But the answer is not then to keep quiet because they might take it personally. If I said something that was offensive to someone else, I'd want to know, even though I'd probably be defensive about it at first and claim "I didn't mean it that way". I hope that eventually I would realize they weren't attacking me personally, and I would stop using that word.
In addition, the vast majority of everyone - native americans included - do not find the term offensive, so I'd contend that your view of the word being considered a slur in mainstream society is invalid.
Pretty sure this has been discussed to death in this thread already, but those claims are highly debated and not hard facts. The newest addition being that the US Patent Office has once again ruled that the term is disparaging to Native Americans.
Wouldnt you agree, though, that it would be better for everyone involved if we were to reclaim the word redskin and remove any derogatory meaning from it?
No. You can't "reclaim" a word that never referred to you in the first place.
Finally - are you agreeing with me that the protests are a product of new-age sensitivity? You didn't address it in your response.
What is your definition of "New Age sensitivity"? I did address it when I said that their have been official protests for over 25 years, and Tiax added that there have been official complaints about the name for at least 45 years. According to Wikipedia, the name was adopted in 1933 (81 years ago), which means the window you appear to be claiming that it was fine, is shrinking. Certainly it appears much smaller than your original claim of a "100 year old tradition" that had no opposition for "three quarters of a century". Even if I were to agree with you (which I'm not saying I do), that the complaints are "new", I'm not sure how it's relevant to the discussion.
The board also canceled the registrations in 1999, but a federal judge overturned that decision in 2003, saying there was no proof that the name was disparaging at the time of registration. Some of the patents date back to the 1960s.
On another note, the US government just limited free speech. This is a political maneuver that has not chance of success.
Well look here... seems that the original meaning of "redskin" was no more derogatory than calling someone black (like we weren't supposed to do in the 90s but now we are).
So it's offensive because it was the word used as the description for who to kill for bounties... No different than if it became a thing to hunt down white people and the signs all described white people as Caucasian. So if we keep with this argument about words not losing their meaning... why is it ok that Redskin has lost it's real original meaning?
Who do you think is arguing that words never change their meaning?
Seems to me that you were arguing that with billy. So now we have several meaning for redskin...
1) A term used in official documents and talks to differentiate between Native Americans and Europeans/US Citizens during the early parts of colonization
2) A term used to differentiate what color skinned people a bounty was being offered on (incorrectly assumed to be a direct reference to scalps)
3) A type of potato
4) A football team with a Native American styled mascot
Because of #2 some people find the word to be offensive. But long before #2 and the reason the word was used for #2 was because for many years (a century? I don't remember) the term was used respectfully to differentiate between two races of people (similar to white and black today). So why does this word need to be taboo? Just because people continued to call Native Americans that during a time period when they were wronged?
Should the Yankees change their name? Yankee is a derogatory name for a Northerner, after all.
Well, the reality of this one is that the term Yankee, while originally a derogatory term, was wholly embraced and commonly used by the folk in the Northeast. A lot of people might be proud to be a Yankee.
The unfortunate reality of this ruling is that repercussions will probably be felt by the Cleveland Indians organization, who will probably change their logo very soon (because he has red skin) and/or change their moniker entirely, as well. I imagine the Redskins will change their name at some point when it becomes the right move, financially.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
MTGS Retired Administrator
This is a sig. Yes it is.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Ah yes, honoring the identity thief who pretended to be an Indian to make money and draft dodge. Regardless, this story is apocryphal. The name was chosen to maintain the native american imagery of the previous name, Braves, but not conflict with the Boston Braves baseball team. As the owner who named them said, "The fact that we have in our head coach, Lone Star Dietz, an Indian, together with several Indian players, has not, as may be suspected, inspired me to select the name Redskins."
Also false. The National Congress of American Indians passed a resolution complaining about the name in 1968.
Obviously if a word has any offensive connotation or context it should not be used in coversation.
LGBT
Gay
Negro
Colored
Jew
White
Black
Brown
Red
*****
****
Homosexual
Liberal
Conservative
Republican
Democrat
Right-Wing
Left-Wing
The list can go on and on...
All have been used in an offensive manner and as slurs. Should we stop using those words?
BTW, I've never said the offensive use of the word has disappeared that is yet another of your misconceptions. I've repeatedly said a word can have multiple meanings and most people are intelligent enough to tell the difference. My use of transcend has been explained to you, quite a few times already. Because Redskins has transcended into a a name for a football team does not remove the offensive connotations when the word is used in a different context.
Its a simple matter of reality that when a person uses the term Redskins, a significant majority of the time they are talking about a football team. Its not surprising you want people to see Redskins as a term for Native Americans instead of a football team. Y
calling liberals loons=not okay
The standard to which the forum moderators apply the rules here.
No, its not. You are the only one in this thread, much less the world, who thinks its football team.
You will never be able to do this in today's society with out facing significant financial and social ramifications. You will get so much negative publicity that no amount of time will change the context or meaning of the the words you use to name your football team. People will see you for what you are, a vindictive person using a repetitive and obnoxious words to make a severely flawed analogy with the audacity to try and repeat a process that should of never happened in the first place. You ignorantly assume you can repeat what the Redskins did.
It will never be perfectly acceptable name in today's society. Never. One, you'd have to fend off my lawsuits. More importantly,iff you think the victims of rape much less the parents of child rape victims would let you use such an ugly term to make a flawed point about how a football team should not use a term, you are rather insensitive. The sad thing is, you think its possible the change the context of child rape in today's society. It will never occur no matter how many times you say it.
calling liberals loons=not okay
The standard to which the forum moderators apply the rules here.
No, I'm not accusing Washington fans of being racist, nor am I saying that the original intent of choosing the name was racist. However the fact remains that the term is a racial slur. So regardless of past intent, it should be changed now.
No... but that's not all that happened. Redskin being used a racial slur has also fallen out of use. As I stated before the only time you hear the word anymore is old Western films, and in discussions on the football team. Kind of like how nobody uses the word gay to refer to being happy anymore. The meaning still exists but that's no longer how it is used. So unless your hypothetical also includes the majority of society using different terminology for child rape your hypothetical does not parallel Redskins.
What would you say if the N-word were to be used so much in a positive way between black people and rapers that it became socially acceptable to a lot of people to use the term? Would you still be fighting to eliminate it's use just because historically it was a slur and there were still some people that did not like it?
Be aware of singing as if you were half dead,
or half asleep:
but lift your voice with strength.
Be no more afraid of your voice now,
nor more ashamed of its being heard,
than when you sang the songs of Satan.
You may not be saying it directly, but consider that you're telling a person that their devoted fandom is based on a disgusting, racist premise (that they are likely unaware of until you mentioned it) - anyone would take that personally. In addition, the vast majority of everyone - native americans included - do not find the term offensive, so I'd contend that your view of the word being considered a slur in mainstream society is invalid. If numbers don't matter then, if I get a small group together, can we decide that any arbitrary word is offensive to us and campaign to get it removed from use?
Wouldnt you agree, though, that it would be better for everyone involved if we were to reclaim the word redskin and remove any derogatory meaning from it? I mean, the redskins are now engaged in quite a bit of philanthropic work, and have done NOTHING to suggest anything negative or racist about native americans outside of refusing to change their century long hertiage. I'd be willing to wager that most people had not encountered redskin as a slur, outside of hearing it from very vocal minority opposing the redskin name. If we collectively let that connotation fade into history (as it has been, slowly, for the past hundred years) - wouldn't we all be better off?
Finally - are you agreeing with me that the protests are a product of new-age sensitivity? You didn't address it in your response.
G MGC
WB Teysa Tokens
BR Wortsnort
UG 23.5-No Edric
URG Noncombo Animar
GUB Damia Stax
WBR Alesha Hatebear Recursion
WBR Daddy Tariel
UBR [Je]love-a Your Deck
GWU Almost Critterless Enchantress
WUB Sydri+Artifacts=WUB
WURG Glint-Eye Combo
A Redskin is a football player. True. RGIII is a Redskin. True. Surely intelligent people think I'm calling football players and RGIII and a football team Native American.
Look, if you're too stupid to tell a Redskin from a Native American, I think the problem's on your end.
calling liberals loons=not okay
The standard to which the forum moderators apply the rules here.
To be fair context matters a lot here. If I am at a bar and hear you just say "oh man a Redskin just walked in" if we are not in Washington chances are I am going to think you are a racist douche until I notice the player as well. However, I don't think anyone would say that in either context (a player or a Native American walking into a bar).
http://money.cnn.com/2014/06/18/news/companies/patent-office-redskins/index.html?hpt=hp_t2
It looks like the PC crowd is getting their wish, because I doubt the cancellation of the trademark is getting overturned like last time.
Man, if only the patent office spent their time fixing Ukraine.
You are completely missing the point, as I expected.
As a society, everything that does not matter is what we are focused on. If it matters, we ignore it. The Redskins' name is a perfect example of just that.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/02/AR2005100201139.html
So it's offensive because it was the word used as the description for who to kill for bounties... No different than if it became a thing to hunt down white people and the signs all described white people as Caucasian. So if we keep with this argument about words not losing their meaning... why is it ok that Redskin has lost it's real original meaning?
Who do you think is arguing that words never change their meaning?
I understand that people can be defensive when confronted with the idea that they're doing something wrong. But the answer is not then to keep quiet because they might take it personally. If I said something that was offensive to someone else, I'd want to know, even though I'd probably be defensive about it at first and claim "I didn't mean it that way". I hope that eventually I would realize they weren't attacking me personally, and I would stop using that word.
Pretty sure this has been discussed to death in this thread already, but those claims are highly debated and not hard facts. The newest addition being that the US Patent Office has once again ruled that the term is disparaging to Native Americans.
No. You can't "reclaim" a word that never referred to you in the first place.
What is your definition of "New Age sensitivity"? I did address it when I said that their have been official protests for over 25 years, and Tiax added that there have been official complaints about the name for at least 45 years. According to Wikipedia, the name was adopted in 1933 (81 years ago), which means the window you appear to be claiming that it was fine, is shrinking. Certainly it appears much smaller than your original claim of a "100 year old tradition" that had no opposition for "three quarters of a century". Even if I were to agree with you (which I'm not saying I do), that the complaints are "new", I'm not sure how it's relevant to the discussion.
On another note, the US government just limited free speech. This is a political maneuver that has not chance of success.
Interestingly redneck is trademarked.
calling liberals loons=not okay
The standard to which the forum moderators apply the rules here.
Seems to me that you were arguing that with billy. So now we have several meaning for redskin...
1) A term used in official documents and talks to differentiate between Native Americans and Europeans/US Citizens during the early parts of colonization
2) A term used to differentiate what color skinned people a bounty was being offered on (incorrectly assumed to be a direct reference to scalps)
3) A type of potato
4) A football team with a Native American styled mascot
Because of #2 some people find the word to be offensive. But long before #2 and the reason the word was used for #2 was because for many years (a century? I don't remember) the term was used respectfully to differentiate between two races of people (similar to white and black today). So why does this word need to be taboo? Just because people continued to call Native Americans that during a time period when they were wronged?
The unfortunate reality of this ruling is that repercussions will probably be felt by the Cleveland Indians organization, who will probably change their logo very soon (because he has red skin) and/or change their moniker entirely, as well. I imagine the Redskins will change their name at some point when it becomes the right move, financially.
MTGS Retired Administrator
This is a sig. Yes it is.