Should the Washington Redskins name be changed?

[styrgwillidar]

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.

No. They are using censorship to stifle dissent/opposition and consideration of rational truth

Sure.

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.

I didn’t say all speech should be respected. I’m saying once you (or whoever gets to decide) defines what should be respected and what shouldn’t you now start down that slippery slope leading to the muzziling of dissent.

Let me ask you: why do you support free speech?

The pen is mightier than the sword. Ideas are far more powerful than weapons, because it is ideas which motivate people to action. Campuses attempting to muzzle anti-abortion activists are attempting to deny the truth, prohibiting people showing or talking about the reality of abortion. Those pushing gay marriage want to cast opposition in the context of hate and bigotry to avoid the larger issues of how will this truly affect society. Control of ideas and attitudes, of the very culture, of editing negative thoughts or ideas (again in the opinion of those who get to decide) prevents facing some truths which can be very ugly. Some folks would rather suppress the ugliness than confront it. Have you seen the push on college campuses to have ‘warnings’ prior to covering controversial material? Censorship stifles innovation, creativity and critical thinking as it attempts to force people into an approved ‘group think’.

You may read my poorly written words and believe me to be an idiot. Fair enough. My having free speech has done no harm. But at least we can exchange ideas provoke thoughts in each other and come away the better for it having been presented and seriously considered an opposing or different view than our own.

 

[CaptFun]

Meanwhile…

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

Etc etc etc…

YES! And even just considering the patent office itself … what they are APPROVING while cracking down on the Redskins is breathtaking. And noted in this piece

Patently Absurd Activism on ‘Redskins’
Brent Bozell | Jun 20, 2014

townhall.com/columnists/brentbozell/2014/06/20/patently-absurd-activism-on-redskins-n1853668/page/2

Warning - many traditional curse words, sexual epithets, and sketchy products are mentioned in the article.

 

[seakelp]

I didn’t say all speech should be respected. I’m saying once you (or whoever gets to decide) defines what should be respected and what shouldn’t you now start down that slippery slope leading to the muzziling of dissent.

Imagine a country where some speech is not tolerated. For instance, if someone threatens another person, the person making the threat can sometimes be punished. Or, for example, someone who wants to create computer generated images of child pornography isn’t allowed to do so, even though this constitutes “speech.”

Imagine such a horrible, oppressive, slippery-sloping nation and the poor suckers who must live there, the sweet taste of freedom just beyond their grasp.

The pen is mightier than the sword. Ideas are far more powerful than weapons, because it is ideas which motivate people to action. Campuses attempting to muzzle anti-abortion activists are attempting to deny the truth, prohibiting people showing or talking about the reality of abortion. Those pushing gay marriage want to cast opposition in the context of hate and bigotry to avoid the larger issues of how will this truly affect society. Control of ideas and attitudes, of the very culture, of editing negative thoughts or ideas (again in the opinion of those who get to decide) prevents facing some truths which can be very ugly. Some folks would rather suppress the ugliness than confront it. Have you seen the push on college campuses to have ‘warnings’ prior to covering controversial material? Censorship stifles innovation, creativity and critical thinking as it attempts to force people into an approved ‘group think’.

You may read my poorly written words and believe me to be an idiot. Fair enough. My having free speech has done no harm. But at least we can exchange ideas provoke thoughts in each other and come away the better for it having been presented and seriously considered an opposing or different view than our own.

Well-put! So you think that freedom of speech is essentially about some utilitarian end. Censorship isn’t just about the rights of an individual to freely express his or her own ideas: censorship also broadly harms society generally, because ideas that would be beneficial to society might get stifled if they contradict the cultural orthodoxy of the day.

Is that a fair summary?

 

[johnmann]

Yes, I believe they should change their name.

What if a team were called the “Darkies”? The “wetbacks”?

Or “Fighting Irish” with a leprechaun mascot. Or “Cowboys.”

Both those who say it’s surely offensive and those who say it’s surely not are wrong. The truth is it’s surely ambiguous. The truth is words have different connotations to different people.

 

[styrgwillidar]

Imagine a country where some speech is not tolerated. For instance, if someone threatens another person, the person making the threat can sometimes be punished. Or, for example, someone who wants to create computer generated images of child pornography isn’t allowed to do so, even though this constitutes “speech.”

Imagine such a horrible, oppressive, slippery-sloping nation and the poor suckers who must live there, the sweet taste of freedom just beyond their grasp.

Well-put! So you think that freedom of speech is essentially about some utilitarian end. Censorship isn’t just about the rights of an individual to freely express his or her own ideas: censorship also broadly harms society generally, because ideas that would be beneficial to society might get stifled if they contradict the cultural orthodoxy of the day.

Is that a fair summary?

That is a fair summary. There is more to it-- how can we truly learn if we are afraid to even examine ideas or concepts? It’s like saying you can’t read a book which contradicts your views. If God is Truth, why be afraid of Him? If a book can challenge my views, are my views based on truth? Am I wrong? How can I be corrected if I censor those with different opinions. Even reading something contrary to my views forces me to examine them more deeply, can lead to a better understanding of my own position. How can I better understand you if I am not willing to listen to you? How can I be compassionate or empathetic if I prohibit you from speaking? If I disagree, I am free to speak in my turn. I may not convince you but we each understand the other better. (Again, you may not respect what I’ve said as it may clearly not be worthy of respect). Some speech certainly prove the saying: “Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt” variously attributed to Lincoln, Wilde, Confuscious but similar to Proverbs, 17, 28:“Even a fool, when he holdeth his peace, is counted wise: and he that shutteth his lips is esteemed a man of understanding.”

Can folks misuse their speech and hurt others? Yes. Which is really what this is about-- intentional or unintentional is the name hurtful to some people and what should be done about it.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

Should the Washington Redskins name be changed?

I wonder what Holy Scripture has to say about this.

Does the Catechism have an answer? How about Cannon Law?

Let’s ask an Apologist…

 

[AnnieHall]

The site I’m going to post a link to isn’t a website I visit often, but a while ago I saw this article posted and thought it was a good read on this topic, and I found that I especially appreciated the quoted section I’ve pulled out:

Americans think differently about race and the language of race than we did 80 years ago. We now live in a world, for instance, in which it’s absolutely unacceptable for an NFL player to utter a racial slur. Changing the way we talk is not political correctness run amok. It reflects an admirable willingness to acknowledge others who once were barely visible to the dominant culture, and to recognize that something that may seem innocent to you may be painful to others. In public discourse, we no longer talk about groups based on their physical traits: No one would ever refer to Asians as yellow-skinned. This is why the majority of teams with Indian nicknames have dropped them over the past 40 years.

slate.com/articles/sports/sports_nut/2013/08/washington_redskins_nickname_why_slate_will_stop_referring_to_the_nfl_team.html

I personally grew up in a small, dominantly (we’re talking ~95%) white town whose high school mascot was Redskins, and had been since the 1930’s. I was in middle school when the controversy and discussions of changing the name started, and I was in high school once the drama reached its peak. It took a few years to work it all out, and we actually spent some time without any mascot for a couple years since the town couldn’t agree (the joke between my friends and me was that our unofficial nickname was “the awkward pauses”, as there were plenty during sporting events, especially during away games where the announcers would just barely catch themselves from saying Redskins). But eventually, I was a part of the student body that voted on a new name, which I take pride in (how many people can say that they were able to help leave a mark like that at their school? )

Of course a professional sports team is different from a public school in many ways. Legally I think that if the owner truly wants to keep the name because of tradition, he of course has the right, as long as it doesn’t go against anything in a contract with the NFL (which is clearly hasn’t been violating anything or they’d have a new name already).

It is clearly a term that has been grandfathered in, as I don’t think anyone can realistically think that a new team would be named Redskins today, and I know for me, I wouldn’t feel comfortable calling a group of Native Americans or a single Native American that term.

At this point it’s more a business decision. I think good leadership could make the best of keeping or changing the name - with the right attitude and presentation of things, changing the name shouldn’t hurt your fan base. Of course some people will not be excited if their new RG3 jersey is now out of date, but I don’t think making a decision to change a nickname will result in losing any real fans, especially not if you have a good team and staff and get them a bunch of wins!!

This post ended up being much longer and more rambling than I hoped, apologies for jumping around, but hopefully my train of thought isn’t confusing at least.

 

[njlisa]

Here’s what the Catechism says about discrimination.

1935 The equality of men rests essentially on their dignity as persons and the rights that flow from it: Every form of social or cultural discrimination in fundamental personal rights on the grounds of sex, race, color, social conditions, language, or religion must be curbed and eradicated as incompatible with God’s design.

The Oxford English dictionary states: of the term “redskin:” “An American Indian. Now somewhat dated and freq. considered offensive.”

I think the Patent Office was way too heavy-handed. It’s not up to them to regulate political correctness.

 

[buffalo]

‘It’s about time’: Ruth Buzzi announces Washington Redskins removing ‘demeaning word’

Washington Redskins are removing that embarrassing, demeaning word from their team name. From now on, they’ll just be called The Redskins.—
RUTH BUZZI (@Ruth_A_Buzzi) June 23, 2014

:extrahappy:

 

[CaptFun]

Should the Washington Redskins name be changed?

I wonder what Holy Scripture has to say about this.

Does the Catechism have an answer? How about Cannon Law?

Let’s ask an Apologist…

Your intriguing question (however jocular) got me to thinking.

Ruddy
Definition dictionary.search.yahoo.com
adj. adjective
Having a healthy, reddish color.
Reddish; rosy.
Used as an intensive.

**1 Samuel 16:12
**
Jesse sent and had the young man brought to them. He was ruddy, a youth handsome to behold and making a splendid appearance. The LORD said, “There-anoint him, for this is he!”

1 Samuel 17:42

When he had sized David up, and seen that he was youthful, and ruddy, and handsome in appearance, he held him in contempt.

Wisdom 5:10

B 6 My lover is radiant and ruddy;
he stands out among thousands.

Lamentations 4:7

Brighter than snow were her princes, whiter than milk, More ruddy than coral, more precious than sapphire.

The closest thing to Redskins in the Bible refers (several times) to Rams’ skins dyed RED. But a Rams logo replacing the Warrior begets redundancy problems. Even if they could keep the NAME the same.

So … maybe … replace the Warrior on the helmet with … DAVID and his slingshot.

http://ts3.mm.bing.net/th?id=HN.607999715263646866&pid=15.1

Washington Redskins

Or would the most insecure loser type Jewish person in the world whine and sue as if a football team’s nickname and logo were the worst of his problems?

When I go out in the sun for longer than 40 minutes uncovered I am a “redskin”. Doesn’t offend me that an Indian Warrior is on the helmet instead of me.

But if it will keep the peace, I’d be willing to sit under a sunlamp for spell and become the Jerry West (NBA logo model) for the Redskins.

Just take me from my good side.

Overly litigious people need to be sent to sensitivity training, or anger management or whatever loony left prescription will help them deal with their terrible lives.

If the worst thing in your life is feeling icky about a logo. You should never stop thanking God.

I doubt these people are sincere. Opportunists is more like it. BUT the media is their lapdog. The lowest of lawyers enable them. And they will probably be paid off for their shenanigans rather than given the short shrift they deserve.

But they offend me. Hmm. Can I SUE them? (kidding of course)

 

[Brendan]

It’s a derogatory term.

It’s not like the “Braves,” or the “Fighting Irish,” or any number of other ethnic mascots (“The Vikings”).

It is a uniquely, deeply offensive term that has no real substantive positive connotation. It’s the only mascot that uses this type of taboo word…

I guess someone forgot to tell that to the Navahos

http://www.sondrakistan.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/code-talkers.jpg

nfl.com/news/story/0ap2000000289096/article/navajo-code-talkers-leader-defends-redskins-name

 

[seakelp]

I guess someone forgot to tell that to the Navahos

nfl.com/news/story/0ap2000000289096/article/navajo-code-talkers-leader-defends-redskins-name

Brendan, as I’m sure you’re aware, many black rappers use the “n-word.”

Does that mean naming a football team “The Washington N-Words” would be appropriate?

 

[CaptFun]

Some of you may not know that the origins of the team name was not an attempt at disparagement or racism at all (if this makes any difference) but an attempt by the Boston NFL team to gain more fans.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

The nickname*** ‘Redskins’*** predates the team playing football in Washington. The organization began playing football in 1932 — in Boston — under the nickname Braves. That was changed in 1933 to Redskins, and the franchise moved to Washington in 1937.

Editor’s note: The team FIRST played in Boston’s “Braves Field” so called themselves the Braves. When they moved across town to the home of the RED Sox they WORE red socks, kept their old jersey with an Indian Chief emblazoned thereon but changed their name to REDSKINS partly to accrue the loyalties of BOTH sets of baseball fans.

So where did the name Braves come from? The NFL was a fledgling league in the ’20s and ’30s, and teams in that era often chose names synonymous with the local baseball team

. George Halas saw the success of the Cubs and named his team the Bears. When the Portsmouth Spartans moved to Detroit in 1934, the name “Lions” made sense for a city that already loved the Tigers.

Major League Baseball’s San Francisco Giants began playing in New York in the 19th century, so it didn’t take the football team long to come up with a nickname in 1925.

Like the Giants, the Boston football team simply copied one of the baseball team’s names — and they didn’t pick ‘Red Sox’. In 1932, the (now ) Atlanta Braves were still playing in Boston at Braves Field, and since that’s where the football team was scheduled to play, I imagine the team spent all of several seconds coming up with a name.

Just a little further history.

When the “baseball Braves” hiked the rent for 1933, George Preston Marshall moved his club to Fenway Park and was faced with a dilemma. He didn’t want to give his former landlord the satisfaction of retaining their nickname, but his team’s uniforms were imprinted with Indian insignia.

Marshall solved the problem with a practicality and shrewdness that would become his trademark. He dubbed his team the “Redskins,” a name he kept when he moved his roadshow from Boston to Washington four years later.

There were also quite a number of Native American athletes on the original Braves and Redskins teams.

Here is what the Boston Globe published on July 6th, 1933:

… This new name is rather appropriate in more than one sense … since the close of the 1932 season Pres Marshall and Coach Dietz have signed up a number of Indian players.

 

[HappyCatholic01]

I don’t get your posts.

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

Whether you find it offensive is irrelevant. That is not what will be discussed when a judge hears the case, so continuing to have posters mention that is meaningless. Again, there is specific evidence for a certain period of time be reviewed; that’s all.

 

[migueltojose]

No.

Silliness.

We need more American Thickskins… too many Thinskins…

–Mick Dago Wopcracker

 

[seakelp]

Well, this might be a bit too far, I admit:

washingtonpost.com/opinions/simon-waxman-tomahawk-missiles-apache-helicopters-just-as-offensive-as-redskins/2014/06/26/16c18738-fc9a-11e3-932c-0a55b81f48ce_story.html

 

[Brendan]

Brendan, as I’m sure you’re aware, many black rappers use the “n-word.”

Does that mean naming a football team “The Washington N-Words” would be appropriate?

Ah, but this is a case where the Navajos came out wearing the team logos, and even came out in defense of the name.

Your analogy is invalid, in that while the Navajos don’t use the team name themselves, they see no fault in Washington using that name,

And if they don’t, why should I?

 

[EasterJoy]

Ah, but this is a case where the Navajos came out wearing the team logos, and even came out in defense of the name.

Your analogy is invalid, in that while the Navajos don’t use the team name themselves, they see no fault in Washington using that name,

And if they don’t, why should I?

Maybe because the opposition includes “the Cherokee, Comanche, Oneida and Seminole tribes, as well as the National Congress of American Indians, the largest intertribal organization, which represents more than 250 groups with a combined enrollment of 1.2 million.”

According to a legal brief filed by the National Congress: *The ‘Redskins’ trademark is disparaging to Native Americans and perpetuates a centuries-old stereotype of Native Americans as ‘blood-thirsty savages,’ ‘noble warriors’ and an ethnic group ‘frozen in history.

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

 

[Lost_Sheep]

Worth reading.

slate.com/blogs/lexicon_valley/2013/12/18/redskins_the_debate_over_the_washington_football_team_s_name_incorrectly.html