This exists

[ashbury]

I can't visualize anybody using the term "redskin" as a racial slur.

 

Among the various assumptions in your post, this one is maybe easiest to test, if you feel up to a visit to the Rez. Try it and see what sort of reactions you get.

[Twins best friend]

Try it and see what sort of reactions you get.

Maybe I'm being naive but what I'm saying is that I wouldn't think that somebody would actually do that. I'm not disputing when used in that way the word is offensive but I don't feel like that is its use anymore.

[Twins best friend]

There is a whole thread telling you how people feel, many of those posts quite effectively derail the ideas you posted.

 

My post was originally a new thread because I was unaware this thread existed. I scrolled through trying to see if there was one already started but I obviously missed this one. Somebody was kind enough to move the post here for me.

[TheLeviathan]

My post was originally a new thread because I was unaware this thread existed. I scrolled through trying to see if there was one already started but I obviously missed this one. Somebody was kind enough to move the post here for me.

 

Then there are a lot of responses here. There was also a thread in the General Baseball thread on this subject as well. I'd link but not able to do so conveniently at the moment.

[PseudoSABR]

In short, you can't use yourself as a template for what other people should find offensive.

 

That the term was at any time a slur that dehumanized a group of people should compel our better selves to make a change. It's only the senseless, yet traditional, fear of change that motivates those who rally against it.

[biggentleben]

Then there are a lot of responses here. There was also a thread in the General Baseball thread on this subject as well. I'd link but not able to do so conveniently at the moment.

 

Can you, however, link the thread INCONVENIENTLY? That's what I'd pay good money to see!

[ashbury]

Can you, however, link the thread INCONVENIENTLY? That's what I'd pay good money to see!

 

Possibly you are thinking of this thread:

 

C l e v e l a n d - p h a s i n g - o u t - t h e i r - m a s c o t

 

I have placed the link as inconveniently as I could, with a few moments' effort.

[Twins best friend]

That the term was at any time a slur that dehumanized a group of people should compel our better selves to make a change. It's only the senseless, yet traditional, fear of change that motivates those who rally against change.

 

If the name of the redskins is changed it won't upset me. I post because I think it's an interesting topic. Wouldn't it be mean more if we, as humans, instead could adapt a word with cruel intentions rather than hide from it? To say we understand what this used to be but no longer accept that definiton? I sippose a similar argument can be made for eliminating the word but I stand by my approach for the moment.

[PseudoSABR]

No one's hiding from the term. But to use it as mascot for a team as nationally prominent as Washington and the NFL are spotlights and celebrates the slur.

[Brock Beauchamp]

The author mentioned the Fighting Irish among the team names that should be on the hit list. The use of that mascot is far more cartoonish.

 

Ugh. I hate this analogy. Notre Dame was/is a largely Irish school. The name was created because they were, you know, the Fighting Irish. As in actually of Irish descent.

 

And if you can't see the difference between that and the Washington Redskins, well, so be it... But it seems so painfully obvious that I don't know how anyone makes that analogy without feeling dirty afterward.

[Twins best friend]

No one's hiding from the term. But to use it as mascot for a team as nationally prominent as Washington and the NFL are spotlights and celebrates the slur.

 

I'm having trouble accepting the term "celebrates" because it is the team being celebrated not the word. And accepting an adaptation on such a popular national stage would make the effort even more important if we could pull it off.

[PseudoSABR]

The team is being celebrated through the vessel of the mascot, which is a slur. The reason Native American figures are commodified into mascots is because of the racist assumptions people make about those figures' savagery and fierceness. There's no point in calling a team the Redskins if it doesn't celebrate that sense of savagery.

 

Redskin will always be made up of two words that have immutable meanings--the notion that you can simply wipe away the historical roots of the word is just silly.

[TheLeviathan]

This used to be their theme song:

 

Hail to the Redskins! Hail, victory!

Braves on the warpath!

Fight for Old D.C.!

Scalp 'em, swamp 'um

We will take 'um big score

Read 'um, Weep 'um, touchdown

We want heap more

Fight on, fight on, till you have won

Sons of Washington

Rah! Rah! Rah!

Do we really still need to discuss whether the name was rooted in racism and a lack of empathy for mocking Native Americans?

[Twins best friend]

The team is being celebrated through the vessel of the mascot, which is a slur.

 

Is your argument on whether or not the mascot and image of an american indian on the logo should be removed? If so then I agree that the logo/mascot should be changed but the team could still use redskins the way the packers or nationals do and represent themselves with a letter. Arguing the image is different than arguing the word.

[PseudoSABR]

I don't know how you can admit to the problem with the iconography of the logo and not see the problem with the name. The symbolic weight of each is the same. Again, it's not like Redskin is some nonsense word, that only acts as a slur, the name is offensive because it refers to a person literally by the color of their pelt.

[Ultima Ratio]

Test.

 

Redskins.

 

Nope, the internets doesn't filter the word out.

 

Maybe in N. Korea it would.

[Twins best friend]

Because the word only gains a racial connotation with the association to a misrepresentation of an American Indian. if you showed a child a Redskin football player with the term Redskin on their jersey but no image of an American Indian the child would, i assume, conclude that they are named that because their jersey is red. The term itself can only be considered offensive when represented with a misrepresentation of an American Indian. Otherwise it could refer to somebody blushing, or angry, or too warm.

[Twins best friend]

Do we really still need to discuss whether the name was rooted in racism and a lack of empathy for mocking Native Americans?

 

Let's look at the Vikings theme song:

 

Skol Vikings, let's win this game,

Skol Vikings, honor your name,

Go get that first down,

Then get a touchdown.

Rock 'em . . . Sock 'em

Fight! Fight! Fight! Fight!

Go Vikings, run up the score,

You'll hear us yell for more. . .

V-I-K-I-N-G-S

Skol, Vikings, let's go!

 

What do they have in common? They both cheer the team to fight, they both focus on scoring touchdowns, they both praise the team (Hail Redskins, Skol Vikings), So you're issue is with the word scalp. I would classify the use of that word as a stereotype but not as racist. I'd also like to address again that I don't dispute the roots of the word. I believe that people vastly associate the word with a football team, not a race of people. Therefore, the definition of the word has undergone/is undergoing a dramatic change and the issue lies not in the word but in the association to an incorrect image. The image should be the target, not the word.

[PseudoSABR]

What the fight songs have in common is that they are fight songs, what they don't have in common is relying on racially charged phrases and images to rally that fight. The second and fourth lines of the Redskins depicts the very savagery that people find demeaning.

 

If the Vikings fight song had a line about force-feeding someone with lutefisk or raping and pillaging the villages of Greenland, you might actually have a point.

[glunn]

I see no good reason for preserving the image or the word. Without the image, the word seems meaningless and therefore not a good team nickname. It seems to me that a clean slate makes the most sense.

 

I appreciate how everyone has been following TD policy in this thread.

[Twins best friend]

If the Vikings fight song had a line about force-feeding someone with lutefisk...

 

This made me chuckle heartily. However neither of those examples pertains to the actual word Redskins.

 

In response to Glunn, the benefit in retaining the word after the severing of connection to the image is monetary. There is a considerable amount of merchandise in circulation which has the word Redskins on it with no logo which would remain valid.

[TheLeviathan]

If you think the only issue with that song is "scalp" then you need to brush up on your Native American stereotypes. It's rife with more.

 

Its ample evidence of the utter indifference to mockery the whole concept is. We should want to be better than that.

[TheLeviathan]

This made me chuckle heartily. However neither of those examples pertains to the actual word Redskins.

 

In response to Glunn, the benefit in retaining the word after the severing of connection to the image is monetary. There is a considerable amount of merchandise in circulation which has the word Redskins on it with no logo which would remain valid.

 

well, at least we've put a price tag on respect then I suppose.

[Twins best friend]

If you think the only issue with that song is "scalp" then you need to brush up on your Native American stereotypes. It's rife with more.

 

Could you elaborate more on them then? Besides scalp what are the other stereotypes? I still don't believe that mockery is the correct term. You need to brush up on your history as well. Europeans were very impressed with the Revolutionary era American Indian physique. There are accounts of soldiers boasting that they were able to complete marches that even American Indians found difficult implying that there was a great deal of respect for the physical ability of American Indians. American Indians would joke how the the settlers couldn't handle the terrain and the weather of America because they weren't manly enough. How would it be mocking to name a team after a group of people who were considered physically elite? The image on the logo is incorrect because it misrepresents the true image of American Indians and that should be changed. The name, in my opinion, has lost the connection to that image and American Indians as a nation and now is synonymous with a football team.

 

That was an unnecessary shot as well regarding the price tag. I've stated before that I will not be remorse if the name is changed. Glunn wanted a reason and I offered a financial incentive. You cannot argue that it woudn't be a financial incentive which means your basis is on the morals which we were arguing already anyway.

[Twins best friend]

Actually, I'm going to put an end to my part in this argument and ask the most basic question possible. Do you feel that the term Redskins still calls to mind the image of American Indians for people? My entire argument is based on that I don't feel that it does anymore. If people are in agreement that Redskins is still associated with American Indians and not the football team in their mind then I recant my argument and agree that the name should be changed.

[TheLeviathan]

Could you elaborate more on them then?

 

The beat, warpath, braves, broken english, wump em - it's all one big cartoonish portrayl.

 

How would it be mocking to name a team after a group of people who were considered physically elite?

 

We thought Africans so physically impressive we enslaved them and worked them to death. Want to rename any teams the "Negros"? Your position is getting less and less rational with every post.

 

That was an unnecessary shot as well regarding the price tag.

 

Not at all. Financial windfalls shouldn't even be a consideration. It's insulting and shows just how trivial you treat the issue that you equate human dignity with price tags.

[PseudoSABR]

Do you feel that the term Redskins still calls to mind the image of American Indians for people? My entire argument is based on that I don't feel that it does anymore.

What the heck else could the word Redskin refer to? They have an American Indian on the side of helmet, for ****'s sake. You can't really believe that people don't make the association between the name and the logo and the actually people.

 

How many people does it take to be offended by the nickname and how many people does it take to associate the nickname to American Indians for you to change your mind? Because there's plenty of people in both categories.

[Twins best friend]

They have an American Indian on the side of helmet, for ****'s sake...how many people does it take to associate the nickname to American Indians for you to change your mind? Because there's plenty...

 

I've stated my view on the logo. I think it should be removed. If there are people that think of American Indians as Redskins and less than other people then I'm sorry. I do not associate that term with American Indians, only a football team. I really would like to think that people are better than making that association. However, since there is such vehement opposition to my assumption, I'll retract it and apologize again.