Should the Washington Redskins name be changed?

  • Thread starter Thread starter RosslynV
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Calling an American Indian a “Redskin” is borderline hate speech in nearly every context.
Click to expand...
And referring to them as Indians (they are not from India!!! they are the first Americans) would be bothersome to some of them. You can’t get away from it.

I hope the team ownership fights this and wins. Enough generational apology!!!

ICXC NIKA.
 
seakelp said:
There is a clear and measurable difference between political and hate speech. While I agree that the distinction is often lost on the public, that doesn’t mean the distinction isn’t real.

Calling an American Indian a “Redskin” is borderline hate speech in nearly every context.
Click to expand...
So is opposing gay marriage or abortion. Because you are allowing hate speech to be defined by whatever vocal group chooses to be offended by it, regardless of the intent of the speaker.
 
GEddie said:
And referring to them as Indians (they are not from India!!! they are the first Americans) would be bothersome to some of them. You can’t get away from it.

I hope the team ownership fights this and wins. Enough generational apology!!!

ICXC NIKA.
Click to expand...
No, “American Indian” is the preferred term.

According to a 1995 U.S. Census Bureau set of home interviews, most of the respondents with an expressed preference refer to themselves as “American Indians” or simply “Indians”; this term has been adopted by major newspapers and some academic groups, but does not traditionally include Native Hawaiians or certain Alaskan Natives, such as Aleut, Yup’ik, or Inuit peoples.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Native_Americans_in_the_United_States

It’s very easy to “get away from” “it.” You do this by being conscious of the historical injustices and modern day problems that arise out of those past wrongs. You then think, “My goodness, perhaps as a decent human being, much less as a follower of Christ, I should maybe be sensitive to painful language that can inflame and hurt people by reminding them of the terrible, terrible suffering their grandparents endured, which effects continue to cause considerable pain to certain groups even today.”

It’s literally as simple as being compassionate and understanding.

There are innumerable slurs that we wouldn’t tolerate as the name of a sports franchise. Out of a sense of decency, I won’t list them here, but we can all think of them. Why is “redskin” any different?
 
styrgwillidar said:
So is opposing gay marriage or abortion. Because you are allowing hate speech to be defined by whatever vocal group chooses to be offended by it, regardless of the intent of the speaker.
Click to expand...
I think you’re very confused.

Political speech about isn’t hate speech because you’re talking about political conduct, not a group.

“Redskin” is a word that is used solely to refer to American Indians, and it is pejorative. It has no political content. It is strictly a slur.
 
seakelp said:
…

Why is “redskin” any different?
Click to expand...
Good question. Because it is also the name of an NFL Team, and it has been their name for ~80 years.

As I said, I don’t care whether they change it or not. Their team, they can call it whatever they want.

I think the issue is that some here (like me) expanding the question to adress- should they be forced to change their name?.. to that I say no.
 
styrgwillidar said:
Good question. Because it is also the name of an NFL Team, and it has been their name for ~80 years.

As I said, I don’t care whether they change it or not. Their team, they can call it whatever they want.

I think the issue is that some here (like me) expanding the question to adress- should they be forced to change their name?.. to that I say no.
Click to expand...
 
styrgwillidar said:
I think the issue some (like me) expanding the issue to adress- should they be forced to change their name… to that I say no.
Click to expand...
Fair enough. There’s no legal remedy that could force the team to change their name. And I agree, in terms of enforcing some legal prohibition, it would be wrong to force the team to change their name.

But the attitude of many of the posters in this thread, so far as I can understand them is this: “Who cares? It’s not offensive. Even if it is offensive, it’s only a little offensive. And even if it’s VERY offensive, American Indians should just get over it.”

The problem with that as a moral position is that it denies American Indians the same kind of dignity we would likely extend to other ethnic groups, based on false understandings of fact or on unwise moral balancing.
 
seakelp said:
I think you’re very confused.

Political speech about isn’t hate speech because you’re talking about political conduct, not a group.

“Redskin” is a word that is used solely to refer to American Indians, and it is pejorative. It has no political content. It is strictly a slur.
Click to expand...
Nope. Not at all. Have you seen what is going on in high schools and college campuses? Or engaged in any debate? I oppose gay marriage — hate speech based on homophobia and equated to racism. Many folks in those environments advocate banning that kind of thing.

Just like opposition to abortion. That’s hate speech against women and their reproductive health. Misogyni.

Once you allow the censorship of things you deem offensive, than you have no logical reason to oppose others using that same reasoning.

I support free speech. Even that which I find ignorant, offensive, biased or prejudiced. It is easily identified and refuted. But if we don’t support free speech we will be constrained to group think, restrictions on the free exchange of ideas, and restrictions on our own right to free speech.
 
styrgwillidar said:
Nope. Not at all. Have you seen what is going on in high schools and college campuses? Or engaged in any debate? I oppose gay marriage — hate speech based on homophobia and equated to racism. Many folks in those environments advocate banning that kind of thing.

Just like opposition to abortion. That’s hate speech against women and their reproductive health. Misogyni.
Click to expand...
Yes, you are confused. And yes, I have. And yes, I have, again.

There is a difference between an empirical reality and a matter of rational truth. The people who call you a misogynist or a homophobe are as mistaken as you are about the nature of political discourse versus the nature of hate speech.
styrgwillidar said:
Once you allow the censorship of things you deem offensive, that you have no logical reason to oppose others using that same reasoning.
Click to expand...
Sure.
styrgwillidar said:
I support free speech. Even that which I find ignorant, offensive, biased or prejudiced. It is easily identified and refuted. But if we don’t support free speech we will be constrained to group think, restrictions on the free exchange of ideas, and restrictions on our own right to free speech.
Click to expand...
No one here disagrees with that. But you’re not refining the categories of speech into areas that allow you a more nuanced understanding of what kinds of speech should be respected, and which kinds cannot.

Let me ask you: why do you support free speech?
 
seakelp said:
Fair enough. There’s no legal remedy that could force the team to change their name. And I agree, in terms of enforcing some legal prohibition, it would be wrong to force the team to change their name.

But the attitude of many of the posters in this thread, so far as I can understand them is this: “Who cares? It’s not offensive. Even if it is offensive, it’s only a little offensive. And even if it’s VERY offensive, American Indians should just get over it.”

The problem with that as a moral position is that it denies American Indians the same kind of dignity we would likely extend to other ethnic groups, based on false understandings of fact or on unwise moral balancing.
Click to expand...
The thing is that most American Indians could care less. The leftist and pc media won’t tell you the poll results.
This is purely a political correctness manufactured idea. It didn’t come from the American Indians.
This entire thing shows how sad the state of our society is.

This is yet another attempt to control words to eliminate concepts. It is not offensive not because some people thinks it isn’t but because the same American Indians don’t think it is.

Aside from that, I have never by calling the team redskins thought anything bad about Indians.
 
Milasol said:
The thing is that most American Indians could care less. The leftist and pc media won’t tell you the poll results.
This is purely a political correctness manufactured idea. It didn’t come from the American Indians.
This entire thing shows how sad the state of our society is.

This is yet another attempt to control words to eliminate concepts. It is not offensive not because some people thinks it isn’t but because the same American Indians don’t think it is.

Aside from that, I have never by calling the team redskins thought anything bad about Indians.
Click to expand...
You’re relying on this:

In 2004, the National Annenberg Election Survey asked 768 people who identified themselves as Indian whether they found the name “Washington Redskins” offensive. Almost 90 percent said it did not bother them.

There are obvious and innumerable problems with this. For one thing, we don’t know what the poll question actually asked. And for another, we know that whenever the sample is based on “people who identify themselves as,” we have bad results.

Check out this article, discussing the many frailties concerning that poll:

ipclinic.org/2014/02/11/11-reasons-to-ignore-the-10-year-old-annenberg-survey-about-the-washington-football-teams-offensive-name/
 
seakelp said:
Fair enough. There’s no legal remedy that could force the team to change their name. And I agree, in terms of enforcing some legal prohibition, it would be wrong to force the team to change their name.

But the attitude of many of the posters in this thread, so far as I can understand them is this: “Who cares? It’s not offensive. Even if it is offensive, it’s only a little offensive. And even if it’s VERY offensive, American Indians should just get over it.”

The problem with that as a moral position is that it denies American Indians the same kind of dignity we would likely extend to other ethnic groups, based on false understandings of fact or on unwise moral balancing.
Click to expand...
Valid points and well put. I would concur that some find it offensive speech, but in the context of the name of a football team, particularly with the long history and the fan support- there is no hate involved. In fact, the fans, the players, the owners are quite proud of their franchise-- hence the emotional connection to a name which for them embodies something vastly different than a reference to American Indians. I don’t think the announcers over all these years uttering the franchise name had any hate intended or offense intended.

Which gets right back to who is supposed to compromise with who over the meaning of the term today? Because the same word means and represents vastly different ideas, is in fact defined quite differently by two groups. Who is supposed to be understanding of the other groups definition? I think of the Raiders and I think of the silver and black, football, Madden, ‘Just Win Baby’ etc. etc. I don’t think of the various groups throughout history that would be considered raiders-- pirates, vikings, the Huns, Mongols etc. etc. etc. but as you pointed out, that name doesn’t have the same type of connotation to others as redskins.
 
seakelp said:
You’re relying on this:

In 2004, the National Annenberg Election Survey asked 768 people who identified themselves as Indian whether they found the name “Washington Redskins” offensive. Almost 90 percent said it did not bother them.

There are obvious and innumerable problems with this. For one thing, we don’t know what the poll question actually asked. And for another, we know that whenever the sample is based on “people who identify themselves as,” we have bad results.

Check out this article, discussing the many frailties concerning that poll:

ipclinic.org/2014/02/11/11-reasons-to-ignore-the-10-year-old-annenberg-survey-about-the-washington-football-teams-offensive-name/
Click to expand...
“We just don’t think that (name) is an issue,” Yazzie said. “There are more important things like busing our kids to school, the water settlement, the land quality, the air that surrounds us. Those are issues we can take sides on.”
“Society, they think it’s more derogatory because of the recent discussions,” Yazzie said. “In its pure form, a lot of Native American men, you go into the sweat lodge with what you’ve got — your skin. I don’t see it as derogatory.”

washington.cbslocal.com/2013/10/08/how-many-native-americans-think-redskins-is-a-slur/

“I would say we do need action,” says Jacqueline Pata, executive director of the Washington, D.C.-based National Congress of American Indians (NCAI).

mmqb.si.com/2014/04/03/washington-nfl-team-name-debate/
This entire thing is sad and not because it is offensive but because of the political correctness bs of it all.
 
styrgwillidar said:
Valid points and well put. I would concur that some find it offensive speech, but in the context of the name of a football team, particularly with the long history and the fan support- there is no hate involved. In fact, the fans, the players, the owners are quite proud of their franchise-- hence the emotional connection to a name which for them embodies something vastly different than a reference to American Indians. I don’t think the announcers over all these years uttering the franchise name had any hate intended or offense intended.
Click to expand...
Fair enough, and let me be clear: I don’t think these people hate American Indians at all. I doubt few people do, thankfully.

But just because language isn’t used in a way that is intended to be derogatory, doesn’t mean it isn’t offensive.

I agree that there is a fine and long history of the name. It was probably not used in order to be offensive. But things change. Things that were once accepted as normal are no longer acceptable in the public sphere. If you want some examples, just google, “Offensive advertising” and take a look. Many of the examples will be from earlier times, when a particular word or depiction of some group was not considered offensive.

We’d still, rightfully, object to the publication of these advertisements if they were published nowadays. Similarly, we can object to the use of a racial slur as a name for a national football team.
styrgwillidar said:
Which gets right back to who is supposed to compromise with who over the meaning of the term today? Because the same word means and represents vastly different ideas, is in fact defined quite differently by two groups. Who is supposed to be understanding of the other groups definition? I think of the Raiders and I think of the silver and black, football, Madden, ‘Just Win Baby’ etc. etc. I don’t think of the various groups throughout history that would be considered raiders-- pirates, vikings, the Huns, Mongols etc. etc. etc. but as you pointed out, that name doesn’t have the same type of connotation to others as redskins.
Click to expand...
Sure! I completely agree that there is a continuum of words that can bring up painful associations.

But the term “redskins” is so far beyond the pale of being acceptable it lies way on the far end of that continuum, along with a whole cluster of inappropriate words and phrases.
 
Milasol said:
This entire thing is sad and not because it is offensive but because of the political correctness bs of it all.
Click to expand...
I don’t get your posts.

Are you suggesting that the term “redskin” isn’t offensive? Or do you not care?
 
Meanwhile…

Iraq
IRS
Berhdhal
Abortion
HHS Mandate lawsuits
Muslim Brotherhood advancing throughout the middle east
Boko Haram

Etc etc etc…
 
No one here disagrees with that. But you’re not refining the categories of speech into areas that allow you a more nuanced understanding of what kinds of speech should be respected, and which kinds cannot.
Click to expand...
No nuances are needed. Nuances only give sanction to allow certain forms of speech while stomping on others.
Let me ask you: why do you support free speech?
Click to expand...
Because freedom of the human being begins and, to an extent, ends, with the ability to speak one’s mind.

ICXC NIKA
 
GEddie said:
No nuances are needed. Nuances only give sanction to allow certain forms of speech while stomping on others.

Because freedom of the human being begins and, to an extent, ends, with the ability to speak one’s mind.

ICXC NIKA
Click to expand...
Do I have a free speech right to threaten to kill you?

If not, why is that threat not protected as free speech? I’m asking you philosophically, not legally.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top