Coming soon: the NFL's D.C. Cabs?

Ask Devil.

 

When did I say it was OK to use slurs against people? Instead of putting words in my mouth, perhaps you can look at the facts. 1.) I don't believe the Washington Redskins nickname is a slur. 2.) Neither do 79 percent of people recently polled by the Associated Press. 3.) I don't want them to be forced to change the nickname. 4.) Only 11 percent of people recently polled by the Associated Press do.
Are we really going to start making decisions based upon the will of 11 percent of the population? Really? Is that how things are going to go?
How about instead of getting riled up about a f*cking football team's nickname that those 11 percent of people go out and do something productive with their lives?
Because right now, if this were in front of a 10-person jury, Snyder's team would have almost 100 years of history behind him and polls that show most people support the name while you and your side's argument and evidence essentially boils down to "So, uh, we're like offended by it."
And, if that poll is to be believed, the deliberations of the jury would come down to eight people who supported the name, one person who wasn't sure or didn't care and one loudmouth in the corner who was offended and refused to listen to anyone else's point of view because "Errrmygod, its offensive."
But you'd like to go ahead and rule in favor of that one jury member then? Is that how you would settle issues?

 

Is this company in the cross hairs of the do-gooders?

 

I thought outing was strictly forbidden around here ...

 

Yes -- because there's pressure to ban chewing tobacco once and for all at the major league level after Tony Gwynn's death.

 

Who cares if black people want the right to vote? They're only 12 percent of the population.

Point being: A poll that asks "are you offended" and damn near ALL respondents are people at whom the offending remark is not being directed is useless.

I'm actually a little interested in the polls of Native Americans, because quite frankly, their opinions matter a whole hell of a lot more than yours or mine. Obviously, someone is offended enough to fight it in court for several decades, with several rulings in their favor.

 

It's amazing how predictable it is that someone will bring up the Red Mesa Redskins as if that justifies Washington's use of the term. Why don't we put Red Mesa's use of it in a little better context?

http://cnsmaryland.org/interactives/other-redskins/

Also, your above quoted - and bolded - material about Goddard's research is accurate, although seriously lacking in precision. What Goddard's research states is that the "red" descriptor originates with Indians in the early 1700s, and he cites several examples of American Indians referring to themselves as "red people" or "red man." The part you bolded refers to Europeans awareness in the 1750s that the "red" descriptor originated with Indians themselves. The term "redskin" doesn't appear until 1762 and Goddard pins it to a translator interpreting the words of a Miami-Illinois language speaking chief into French.

Goddard's paper is interesting, and worth the time to read:
http://anthropology.si.edu/goddard/redskin.pdf

 

And one other note from Goddard's tracing of the term's history:

 

If you don't believe the word redskin is a racial slur what do you believe it to be?

 

Do you believe trying to get rid of deeply ingrained, institutional racism is "productive?"

 

A sociology professor surveyed enrolled tribal members - a key distinction between his methodology and the 2004 AP anonymous poll - and found 67 percent of Native American respondents find the term offensive:

http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/2014/06/04/67-percent-native-americans-say-redskins-offensive-155143

 

Call a Native American "Chief" and they will not respond very favorably.

I know there are ways to interpret the nickname and the same cannot be said about Redskins.

It would be interesting to see what would happen if Snyder said, "If the Chiefs change their nickname, so will we."