Redskins: an improper name... now what?

[Dingleberry]

Dear White Guys: Let me say this in the nicest possible way, because I know it may come as a shock: It's not about you.

Making a statement that assumes that all "white guys" think the same way, particularly when discussing racism, is not very productive.

 

[Vigilance]

Dear White Guys: Let me say this in the nicest possible way, because I know it may come as a shock: It's not about you.

I agree totally. The fact that it doesn't offend Crothian, or someone else (most of whom are likely football fans and want their football traditions to stay intact) doesn't mean it's not offensive.

American aboriginals got a worse shaft than any racial group in the history of this country, and that's a really long freakin list. You can either own that and take steps to make it better, or you can prefer that the original Americans be silent except for all the names of rivers and cars and football mascots taken from their language.

Also, I dont think this suit is about money. I think it's about the opposite of money. The plaintiffs want NO ONE (including the Washington football team) to be to trademark (and thus profit from) the word redskin.

 

[Vigilance]

Making a statement that assumes that all "white guys" think the same way, particularly when discussing racism, is not very productive.

He's not assuming they feel a certain way. What he was responding to were posters who were saying "it isn't a racist term to me" and "it doesn't offend me".

Well that's not really the point is it? Of course it doesn't offend you if you aren't a member of the group it's insulting.

Maybe if members of local government had put bounties on the heads of your ancestors, paying $50 for the head of a member of your group, you'd understand, but I'm happy you don't have to.

 

[Crothian]

I agree totally. The fact that it doesn't offend Crothian, or someone else (most of whom are likely football fans and want their football traditions to stay intact) doesn't mean it's not offensive.

I never said it didn't offend people, I just felt that since people were specifically stating it offended them I should say that I'm not in the group offended by it. I can only look at this from my own perspective. I won't lose an ounce of sleep if the name is changed or not.

 

[Crothian]

Maybe if members of local government had put bounties on the heads of your ancestors, paying $50 for the head of a member of your group, you'd understand, but I'm happy you don't have to.

Go back into history and most groups were treated bad by someone. My relatives came here to avoid being killed in WW1. And I know it is not the same.

 

[Dingleberry]

He's not assuming they feel a certain way. What he was responding to were posters who were saying "it isn't a racist term to me" and "it doesn't offend me".

Well that's not really the point is it? Of course it doesn't offend you if you aren't a member of the group it's insulting.

Maybe if members of local government had put bounties on the heads of your ancestors, paying $50 for the head of a member of your group, you'd understand, but I'm happy you don't have to.

I couldn't disagree more with that you have to be a member of a group to be offended by racist insults against that group. Personally, I find the use of "redskins" to be extremely offensive, even though I'm a "white guy." Just because we don't share the same experiences doesn't mean we can't share the same opinion - just as I don't necessarily share the opinion of any other white guy who's had the same experiences I have.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I find the use of "redskins" to be extremely offensive, even though I'm a "white guy."

And this from a person whose screen name is "dingleberry."

 

[Darth Shoju]

Only if the offense is justified, though.

Just because people take offense, it doesn't automatically mean you're being offensive.

('Baa, Baa, Rainbow Sheep', anyone?)

-Hyp.

No, it doesn't necessarily mean you are being offensive.

However, in this case could you please explain how naming the team the Redskins is different than using some more obscure racial epithet for African-Americans or Jews, etc.?

Really, I can't see how there is an argument here. We aren't talking about banning the word "picnic" here. We're talking about a team calling itself the REDSKINS. If intent is so important, then why did they stop having someone come out dressed as an Aboriginal warrior? If they weren't intending to offend anyone, then why didn't they just keep doing it?

 

[Crothian]

If intent is so important, then why did they stop having someone come out dressed as an Aboriginal warrior? If they weren't intending to offend anyone, then why didn't they just keep doing it?

Public pressure probably.

 

[Hypersmurf]

However, in this case...

Ah - note, I didn't address this case.

Just the general point that "If someone takes offense, intent is irrelevant".

I would just prefer to see it qualified as "If someone takes objectively justifiable offense".

-Hyp.