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

Calling yourself right and being right are two completely different things.

 

He might be wrong on various other threads, but he is right here.

What a "majority" of people think doesn't mean shit. We don't make laws, or policies, to protect majorities.

And, acting like you're more tolerant, because you're willing to give both sides of an argument -- including the racist side of the argument -- equal weight doesn't make you a better person, it makes you someone who enables racists.

 

How many Native Americans were on that Patent/Trademark board?

 

You've said that several times like it's written in stone. And your take on that is not necessarily correct.

 

OK. Tell me specifically what you think was wrong about anything I've said. Be specific.

And, quant, the makeup of the board doesn't really matter because they were taking testimony directly from the offended group.

I said before I have no problem with polls of Native Americans used to judge its offensiveness.

I have a big problem with polls asking white people if it's offensive. I have a big problem with white people complaining that everyone is being too sensitive. I have a big problem with people misunderstanding the case to such an extreme degree that they think Snyder is being FORCED to change the name. Etc. Etc.

 

Can we at least use the correct terms for things?

There is no "racist side" of the argument --- only a side that believes the name has become so ingrained with the franchise over so many years that is simply not being used as a slur.

"Racist" is the belief that one race is superior to another. That line of thinking just doesn't apply to the use of the NFL team's nickname. Moreover, the franchise is not calling SOMEONE ELSE the name (which is the case in a typical slur) ---- it is calling ITSELF the name. If you honestly believed the word to be a slur, why would you brand yourself with the slur? It just doesn't make sense.

And finally, there is a big difference in honestly being offended by something, and answering, "Well, yeah, I guess so" if someone asks you, "Is this word offensive to you?"

 

Much of the discussion in this thread is being done by people who know very little about the history of Native Americans in this country.

Most of us would agree that a certain n-word used to describe blacks is a racial slur. As it turns out, the word had benign origins, but it came to be associated as a racial slur because it was used frequently by people who wanted to demonstrate their superiority to blacks.

Now, if you do a little research, you will find that the same thing is true with the word "redskin." It had benign origins, but was then used by people who wanted to demonstrate their superiority to the Indians.

Most people's education about the issues blacks faced came through watching TV in the 1950s and 1960s and saying to themselves, "This is wrong."

Most people's education about the issues Native Americans faced came through high school history textbooks, which portray everything as if it was just some misunderstanding, but now everybody is as happy as can be. USA! USA! USA!

Television didn't exist when the various Indian tribes were forced from their lands or rounded up to be detained, then shot because some overly eager soldier thought he heard a command or was spooked by an Indian and had been led to believe said Indians were bloodthirsty savages who would attack without warning.

All one has to do is look back in the late 1800s and early 1900s to look at how Indians were stereotyped. And the main reason for naming sports teams after Indians was because of the stereotypical idea that they were all fearless warriors looking for a fight.

I've spent some time doing research on the subject and have come to the conclusion that "redskin" is, for a fact, a racial slur. And those who want to proclaim "it's my opinion" are simply refusing to do any research on the subject. And it matters not to me who here is still a journalist, no longer a journalist, or never was a journalist to begin with... your words make it clear you don't care to do a through job researching the subject, but just rely on recent polls in which people just make phone calls to random folks, or whatever talking point gets rolled out on ESPN.

There are legitimate ways to honor Indians and Native Americans, but using the word "redskin" to name a sports team isn't one of them.

And before you get started on the "PC alert" talking point, think about this:

There are people whose ancestors come from Mexico or Central America who may prefer to be called Hispanic, Chicano or Latino, but all of them would take great exception to you calling them a "spic." The first three are terms you can use interchangeably and you may have a point about PC talk if someone gets upset because you didn't use a specific one of those three. But use the fourth and you don't get to use any PC talking point.

Indian, Native American and the names of the tribes are the equivalent of Hispanic, Chicano and Latino. Redskin is the equivalent of spic. Do thorough research beyond pulling up polls and talking points and you will find that is not opinion, but fact.

 

Excellent post. Written in a style that, ahem, a few people could learn something from.

My only quibble, and a very minor quibble at that, would be the equivalency you placed with the n-word and "redskins" as both being words that had "benign origins, but was then used by people who wanted to demonstrate their superiority."

The issue I have is that the n-word is still very common TODAY. You can find it in lots of places used in exactly the manner you describe. The same simply cannot be said for "redskin." If it were not for a handful of sports teams, you wouldn't hear it anywhere.

And finally . . .

 

Since you're the only one taking issue with what I said and trying to make it sound like something else, I'm not too worried about it.

 

Very well-written and thoughtful post.
I still disagree with the connotation of Redskin as a conclusive racial slur since, as stated above, the only time it's ever really heard nowadays is in connection with the sports team so I think that's where your analogy with the "N-word" falls flat (Hell, we can't even say the actual word when referring to the "n-word," it's that hateful a term.)
Other than that, I'd say your opinion is spot on and a very excellent one to consider, even if I do disagree with its ultimate conclusion.

 

Nation's capital...Washington Americans? Logo doesn't even really need to change.