Redskins: an improper name... now what?

[Vigilance]

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.

Well, in this actual case, I would say the offense is objectively justified.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Well, in this actual case, I would say the offense is objectively justified.

I'm not arguing with you on that

-Hyp.

 

[Bront]

The Redskins, Chiefs and Braves have all come under fire at various times for their names, all of which have negative connotations to Native Americans. FYI, "Chief," while a term of status within the community, has been used outside the community in much the same way as "boy" is for blacks- a term of belittlement.

The Indians get in trouble for their iconography, chants & hand chop stuff.

However, the Seminoles, from what I understand, have not had much of a problem with protests. Apparently, the tribe itself doesn't find the use of their name as a team name as offensive.

Similarly, I don't think the Chicago Blackhawks have had many problems with it either.

I'm pretty sure that if they adopted a name a tribe used for themselves- possibly with a marketing agreement- there would be no problem at all.

Check here: http://www.fortunecity.com/victorian/ferndale/61/tribes.htm

and you'll see there are tribal names all over our culture, especially in commercial products like vehicles.

This is one of the things I find curious. Agreeably, the Redskins could be construed as offensive, but the Indiands less so, and the Braves or Chiefs? Hardly I think in the context of which they are used.

The Blackhawks haven't had a problem that I know of, but the Fighting Illini have actualy been sanctioned by the NCAA, a group that allows the Seminoles (Admittedly, who use the name with permition), and the Fighting Irish (which should be no less offensive than the Fighting Illini).

I think the whole thing is idiotic personaly. I'll buy some of the names as being offensive, but some are tastefully done and should be considered a tribute. Next you'll tell me that the San Diego Padres is offensive to religious men because it's used in derogitory ways in some cultures.

 

[Vigilance]

I think the whole thing is idiotic personaly. I'll buy some of the names as being offensive, but some are tastefully done and should be considered a tribute. Next you'll tell me that the San Diego Padres is offensive to religious men because it's used in derogitory ways in some cultures.

Well- I don't think I intended to discuss naming conventions in general. As to the other major league clubs you mention, while some may consider their names in bad taste, no one is suing to revoke their trademarks that I'm aware.

And as for the silliness about the Fighting Irish and Padres being offensive, go read a history book. No one ever offered $50 dollars for the head of an irishman in this country.

If the team name of Notre Dame was the Fighting Mics or the Fighting Limeys... you might see a different reaction. At any rate it would at least be an actual analogy.

I realize some folks would just rather not be bothered with remembering the ugliness of the past and think it's peachy keen to call a team a name people of the group it refers to find offensive. Which is the point. People find the word redskin offensive, based on the way it was used in the past and the history that goes along with it.

People also see no problem with the confederate flag over a courthouse. Doesn't make them right.

Chuck

 

[Crothian]

And as for the silliness about the Fighting Irish and Padres being offensive, go read a history book. No one ever offered $50 dollars for the head of an irishman in this country.

How does this make it more or less offensive? It sounds like that because the Native Americans were treated bad makes derogatory words towards them worse then other groups.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

This is one of the things I find curious. Agreeably, the Redskins could be construed as offensive, but the Indiands less so, and the Braves or Chiefs? Hardly I think in the context of which they are used.

"Brave" and "Chief," while having certain positive connotations, also have a history of being used to belittle male Native Americans in much the same way as "boy" has been used to belittle male blacks in this country. Furthermore, merely removing the words from their original context may be viewed as disrespectful. "Chief" or "Brave" goes from being an honorific to being equated with entertainment for the masses...and with competitors' names like "Buccaneer" and "Pirate."

While the context of a sporting team with a fairly classy reputation may be positive, it still offends those who are having their culture co-opted & possibly stereotyped (both clubs use "Indian war-chants," and capped off with a word with a mixed context. Sometimes, its best to avoid the whole controversy, IMHO.

The objection against the "Indians" is a bit more abstract- and it starts with the team mascot/emblem who is a characature, along with the much objected-to war-chants, etc.

Simply put, its about respect.

 

[takyris]

How does this make it more or less offensive? It sounds like that because the Native Americans were treated bad makes derogatory words towards them worse then other groups.

1) Yes. Was this up for debate? Would you like to concede the point, or would you like me to explain how a racial epithet might be mildly annoying when your racial group has most of the money and most of the power and leads a comfortable life, while a racial epithet applied to somebody who has been actively discriminated against because of that race might be seen as a tad worse?

(1.5) The Irish did have a bit of a time in their journey to acceptance in the U.S., however. There was a time when the Irish were the dirty foreigners coming to steal jobs from the good honest citizens. Those days are a ways behind us, now, though, and it's pretty rare to find somebody who's got a thing about the Irish -- which is one of the additional reasons that the caricatures aren't as bad. On the other hand, travel through the plains states, and it's pretty easy to find somebody who's got a thing about the Indians.)

2) Look at Notre Dame's ethnic makeup. Look at the number of Irish-support deals going on in Boston (the St. Patrick's Day Parade, for starters). Boston and Notre Dame earn their Irish/Celtic caricatures, because there are enough people of that background who directly support the team and think of it as an "us", not a "them". When I visited Notre Dame, it was like walking through an extended family reunion from my mother's side of the family. (Mom: Almost All Irish; Dad: Only Mostly Irish.)

(2.5) Yes, that does mean that if a university with a large African-American population wanted to make its mascot something that would, to external appearances, seem offensive -- I sincerely doubt that the N-word would ever make it, but how about the Runaways, with the mascot a plucky slave hopping over a fence and making a run for the northern states? -- then I'd consider that less offensive. I wouldn't volunteer it myself, god knows, but if it's an "us" thing, then it's a statement of identity, as the Fightin' Irishman is.)

(2.5.1) I only refer to the mascot for the Fightin' Irish. I don't think many Irishmen outside the Boston area have given a rat's behind about the Celtics since Larry Bird left, and anyway, they pronounce the darn name wrong.)

 

[Darth Shoju]

Public pressure probably.

So why not just stand on the "But we don't INTEND to offend anyone by it." argument if that is so morally justified?

 

[Darth Shoju]

You are comparing apples and oranges, those are blatant racist words and it is not impossible to prove intent, just very difficult.

The article that Eric Anondson linked sums up what I feel the best.

Quote:
Perfectly honorable and acceptable words may be used in a disrespectful way.

So Redskin is a perfectly honorable and acceptable word?

As one man said "It’s the way you say it, it’s not the word."

So if I drop the N-bomb with a smile and a wink it is cool?

 

[takyris]

I'm seeing a lot of "how can you tell what is and what isn't" arguments here. That's a lovely argument, and I wish it well. There seem to be a lot of people everywhere, and I'm not saying here in particular, who enjoy doing a little song and dance about how it's impossible to know, really, what is and isn't offensive, and how they know one person who didn't mind it, so really, who's to say? That kind of "the line is so fuzzy!" argument is a great way to get away with saying or doing something that you know is, in fact, actually offensive.

By which logic, me calling them "pampered little upper-class white-boy idiots" should be open to the same interpretation. And I'm not referring to anyone here in those terms, because that would be disrespectful, which is against this site's policy, although really, who's to say what's disrespectful, anyway, because some people might just laugh and wave it off when I say that they're pampered little upper-class white-boy idiots who haven't been out of their privileged little high-speed-Net-enabled worlds and have no idea how the vast majority of the planet lives.

I'm not saying that the line isn't fuzzy. I'm saying that this isn't in the fuzzy part.

"Redskin" is an offensive term. Yes, really.