McGarnicle
Footballguy
The name is a nice tribute IMO. If it weren't for sports teams named after them, we'd rarely even think about the Indians.
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Do you think Snyder should change the name of the Redskins? (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter DBIsports
- Start date
Officer Pete Malloy
Footballguy
watInterested in the slur and what it refers too though. Seems like folks are glossing over the term in question and dropping "Washington" from it and attacking it as if it were just "redskins" that has to be addressed.Probably because it is an outdated slur. 150-200 years ago it was probably common. Now it is considered derogatory so you just don't hear it. I would put it on the same level as "darkie".I'm kinda with GoFishTN on this one....what is the racial slur that is associated with "Washington Redskins" ?? I've never heard it used in a derogatory manner by anyone ever, but concede I'm not in all places at all times.Somehow your own personal experiences as a (white?) Tennessean who hangs out on a fantasy football message board don't really seem like a good measuring stick for what the term means.I don't really care, but I think it's a lot of fuss about nothing. I've never even heard it used a racial slur. The term is always in reference to the team.
Regardless, the team is clearly named after Native Americans, it's right there on the helmet. The name was given a long time ago, back when black people were called "coloreds" or worse and nobody batted an eye. The guy who named them that is one of the worst racists in the history of professional sports. Given those circumstances, I don't think "in reference to a football team" and "racial slur" are mutually exclusive.
B-Deep
Footballguy
"Redskin" is a racial descriptor for the indigenous peoples of the Americas and one of the color metaphors for race used in North America and Europe since European colonization of the Western Hemisphere.Interested in the slur and what it refers too though. Seems like folks are glossing over the term in question and dropping "Washington" from it and attacking it as if it were just "redskins" that has to be addressed.Probably because it is an outdated slur. 150-200 years ago it was probably common. Now it is considered derogatory so you just don't hear it. I would put it on the same level as "darkie".I'm kinda with GoFishTN on this one....what is the racial slur that is associated with "Washington Redskins" ?? I've never heard it used in a derogatory manner by anyone ever, but concede I'm not in all places at all times.Somehow your own personal experiences as a (white?) Tennessean who hangs out on a fantasy football message board don't really seem like a good measuring stick for what the term means.
Regardless, the team is clearly named after Native Americans, it's right there on the helmet. The name was given a long time ago, back when black people were called "coloreds" or worse and nobody batted an eye. The guy who named them that is one of the worst racists in the history of professional sports. Given those circumstances, I don't think "in reference to a football team" and "racial slur" are mutually exclusive.
"Red" as a color metaphor for indigenous people in the Americas is also used without being compounded with "skins", as in the "Red Power" movement in the US in the 1960s and 70s or the 1970 "Red Paper" on Indian policy published by the Indian Chiefs of Alberta in Canada their leader Harold Cardinal.
The term is controversial as it is considered by some to be extremely offensive (an r-word for Native Americans equivalent to the n-word for African-Americans),[1]but neutral by others.[2] The consensus based upon a comparison of current dictionary definitions is that the term has negative or disparaging connotations
B-Deep
Footballguy
McGarnicle
Footballguy
Now Washington Darkies, yeah, that would be offensive.
The Commish
Footballguy
Apparently
Seems to me that they have to show that "Washington Redskins" is a problem to a significant population of the American Indians.
B-Deep
Footballguy
Its all a moo point
Native Americans lack the numbers and money to be a political power or an ecominc power. Even if they had more power, while this might offend them it is one in a list of issues they'd want to tackle, and probably not real high on the list. Conversely the NFL and the Redskins have a lot of money and power. There's a brand that has been established and they are not going to surrender that
So unless some legal trickery like this lawsuit succeeds, the name is here for good.
Native Americans lack the numbers and money to be a political power or an ecominc power. Even if they had more power, while this might offend them it is one in a list of issues they'd want to tackle, and probably not real high on the list. Conversely the NFL and the Redskins have a lot of money and power. There's a brand that has been established and they are not going to surrender that
So unless some legal trickery like this lawsuit succeeds, the name is here for good.
Officer Pete Malloy
Footballguy
Apparently
Seems to me that they have to show that "Washington Redskins" is a problem to a significant population of the American Indians.
Good god. That's not what it says at all.
The Commish
Footballguy
Sorry...was just reading the words on the page. How about educating me a bit?? I've not followed any of this closely. So if that's not what is meant, then what do they mean? The first step to me is getting rid of the trademark, no? That would allow you to disassociate the terms. As it stands I don't see how "Washington Redskin" as a term is offensive. Everyone knows what it means and what it's associated with.Apparently
Seems to me that they have to show that "Washington Redskins" is a problem to a significant population of the American Indians.
>As the 90-minute hearing before three judges on the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board showed, the case against the team is not as simple as declaring that the word “redskins” is a slur and therefore shouldn’t have federal trademark protection. The group of five Native American petitioners has to show that the name “Washington Redskins” was disparaging to a significant population of American Indians back when the team was granted the trademarks from 1967 to 1990.<
/span>
Last edited by a moderator:
SacramentoBob
Footballguy
Maybe they can go with a fetus as the plaintiff next time.
B-Deep
Footballguy
fatguyinalittlecoat
Footballguy
I don't agree with some of your premises. I'm not sure that Snyder or the NFL would lose money by changing it. And plenty of non-Native Americans oppose the name too, so it isn't only them that matter.
Moe.
Footballguy
This is a very good point. Of all the things that have happened over the centuries this ranks pretty low on the scale but that doesn't mean it's not an offensive name. Should have never been granted in the first place.
TobiasFunke
Footballguy
Would "New York Hymies" be offensive?Sorry...was just reading the words on the page. How about educating me a bit?? I've not followed any of this closely. So if that's not what is meant, then what do they mean? The first step to me is getting rid of the trademark, no? That would allow you to disassociate the terms. As it stands I don't see how "Washington Redskin" as a term is offensive. Everyone knows what it means and what it's associated with.Apparently
Seems to me that they have to show that "Washington Redskins" is a problem to a significant population of the American Indians.
>As the 90-minute hearing before three judges on the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board showed, the case against the team is not as simple as declaring that the word “redskins” is a slur and therefore shouldn’t have federal trademark protection. The group of five Native American petitioners has to show that the name “Washington Redskins” was disparaging to a significant population of American Indians back when the team was granted the trademarks from 1967 to 1990.<
/span>
I don't know what "words on the page" you're reading, but based on what you quoted maybe they're just saying that you need to meet the legal standard as it applies to the way the team is using it, you can't just walk in as the plaintiff, say its a slur and be done with it. The team is clearly referencing Native Americans, so "Redskin" vs. "Washington Redskin" is a meaningless distinction.
B-Deep
Footballguy
because not all indians believe that
so it is easy to just say "why should a few people ruin our team name"
The term was once in common use, as evidenced in Western movies, but is now largely considered a pejorative and is seldom used publicly (aside from the football team - see below). As with any term perceived to be discriminatory, different individuals may hold differing opinions of the term's appropriateness.[4]However, common wisdom appears to have settled on the notion that the term is a particularly egregious racial epithet that represents a bloody era in American history in which Indigenous Americans were hunted, killed, and forcibly displaced removed from their lands by European settlers.
that line is the kicker, you can find some native americans that are not offended. So how many is the magic number where it is offensive?
Now consider how small and politically insignificant the native american minority is, and it is easy to poo poo this as a few indians who are pissed off
Officer Pete Malloy
Footballguy
Sorry...was just reading the words on the page. How about educating me a bit?? I've not followed any of this closely. So if that's not what is meant, then what do they mean?Seems to me that they have to show that "Washington Redskins" is a problem to a significant population of the American Indians.Apparently
<blockquote>
>As the 90-minute hearing before three judges on the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board showed, the case against the team is not as simple as declaring that the word “redskins” is a slur and therefore shouldn’t have federal trademark protection. The group of five Native American petitioners has to show that the name “Washington Redskins” was disparaging to a significant population of American Indians back when the team was granted the trademarks from 1967 to 1990.<
>/span>
They have a problem with the word "redskin" the same way somebody would have a problem with the word "coon" or "beaner". Unfortunately Native Americans do not have the clout to get people to care about the slur.
What they're doing is going to the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (whatever that is) and saying that the Washington Redskins shouldn't be able to trademark their name because it violates a " law that prohibits registered names that are disparaging, scandalous, contemptuous or disreputable."
Basically they are trying to use this small legality in order to force a change.
B-Deep
Footballguy
I don't think he lose money either, but there's brand equity and it means a lot to him and the NFL
The Commish
Footballguy
This is the article:Would "New York Hymies" be offensive?Sorry...was just reading the words on the page. How about educating me a bit?? I've not followed any of this closely. So if that's not what is meant, then what do they mean? The first step to me is getting rid of the trademark, no? That would allow you to disassociate the terms. As it stands I don't see how "Washington Redskin" as a term is offensive. Everyone knows what it means and what it's associated with.Apparently
Seems to me that they have to show that "Washington Redskins" is a problem to a significant population of the American Indians.
>As the 90-minute hearing before three judges on the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board showed, the case against the team is not as simple as declaring that the word “redskins” is a slur and therefore shouldn’t have federal trademark protection. The group of five Native American petitioners has to show that the name “Washington Redskins” was disparaging to a significant population of American Indians back when the team was granted the trademarks from 1967 to 1990.<
/span>
I don't know what "words on the page" you're reading, but based on what you quoted maybe they're just saying that you need to meet the legal standard as it applies to the way the team is using it, you can't just walk in as the plaintiff, say its a slur and be done with it. The team is clearly referencing Native Americans, so "Redskin" vs. "Washington Redskin" is a meaningless distinction.
http://washington.cbslocal.com/2013/03/07/fight-on-battle-over-redskins-name-heads-to-court/
Personally, I think it's like any other term and intent matters. Perhaps that's what the courts are saying??
B-Deep
Footballguy
I agree
I, however, generally feel sympathetic to the historic and current situation of native americans
a lot of people just don't give it a second thought. That does not make them bad people, it is just not a concern.
CBusAlex
Footballguy
TobiasFunke
Footballguy
No, they're just saying that the phrase as the team was using it must be shown to have been disparaging during a certain time frame. It's not about intent, it's about effect. I'm not sure why that time frame is the relevant one, I'd have to do some digging to get into that. But Washington Redskins vs Redskins shouldn't be an important distinction. Maybe if the team meant something else by "Redskin" it would be, but that's not the case here.This is the article:Would "New York Hymies" be offensive?Sorry...was just reading the words on the page. How about educating me a bit?? I've not followed any of this closely. So if that's not what is meant, then what do they mean? The first step to me is getting rid of the trademark, no? That would allow you to disassociate the terms. As it stands I don't see how "Washington Redskin" as a term is offensive. Everyone knows what it means and what it's associated with.Apparently
Seems to me that they have to show that "Washington Redskins" is a problem to a significant population of the American Indians.
>As the 90-minute hearing before three judges on the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board showed, the case against the team is not as simple as declaring that the word “redskins” is a slur and therefore shouldn’t have federal trademark protection. The group of five Native American petitioners has to show that the name “Washington Redskins” was disparaging to a significant population of American Indians back when the team was granted the trademarks from 1967 to 1990.<
/span>
I don't know what "words on the page" you're reading, but based on what you quoted maybe they're just saying that you need to meet the legal standard as it applies to the way the team is using it, you can't just walk in as the plaintiff, say its a slur and be done with it. The team is clearly referencing Native Americans, so "Redskin" vs. "Washington Redskin" is a meaningless distinction.
http://washington.cbslocal.com/2013/03/07/fight-on-battle-over-redskins-name-heads-to-court/
Personally, I think it's like any other term and intent matters. Perhaps that's what the courts are saying??
The Commish
Footballguy
They don't seem to have a majority of their own people who care either. I'd like to think if even half of them cared, something would be done. I'm of the opinion that if it matters to them, then it matters to me. If they are ok with it, I'm ok with it etc.
"Honkey" is intended a derogatory term...as is "cracker", but not enough people care about it. But they are fighting words to some.
fatguyinalittlecoat
Footballguy
I don't see why only the views of Native Americans should matter.
TobiasFunke
Footballguy
Why do you require a majority to care? I could understand that if the people who didn't care actually liked the name. But that's not the case here.
I mean, I wouldn't care if they used [insert hilarious derogatory reference to Jews] as a sports nickname. I bet the majority of Jews wouldn't care either. We're known to have a good sense of humor, after all. But that doesn't make it OK. If a nickname offends hundreds of thousands of a certain type of people, I don't see how "but more of you aren't offended!" is a good counterargument. After all we're not talking about rewriting the Ten Commandments here. It's the name of a sports team. Who gives a #### if we change it to something that doesn't offend lots and lots of people?
TobiasFunke
Footballguy
Two different questions:
1. Is it a derogatory name? I think for the most part only the views of Native Americans should matter there. Being the possible target gives you a unique perspective on whether you're being disparaged.
2. Should they change the name? I think everyone's views matter there. Although I'd hope if the answer to #1 is yes for a decent number of people, most of us would agree on the answer to #2.
Fennis
Footballguy
CBusAlex
Footballguy
I can basically guarantee that if some predominantly black high school called their team the "crackers", and had a white guy in a wife beater with half his teeth missing and a confederate flag as the mascot, most of the people who voted 'no' in this poll would be losing their #### over it.
B-Deep
Footballguy
almost every dictionary or non sports related definition of the word says it is widely accepted as a derogatory term
click down through
https://www.google.com/search?q=define+redskin&aq=f&oq=define+redskin&aqs=chrome.0.57j0l2j62l3.7197j0&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
Taken out of the sports context the word is recognized as offensive
here is the issue, this is self reported census data
Out of the total U.S. population, 2.9 million people, or 0.9 percent, reported American Indian or Alaska Native alone. In addition, 2.3 million people, or another 0.7 percent, reported American Indian or Alaska Native in combination with one or more other races. Together, these two groups totaled 5.2 million people. Thus, 1.7 percent of all people in the United States identified as American Indian or Alaska Native, either alone or in combination with one or more other races
just not enough to matter. they have no impact at the poll booth or in the pocket book. additionally how many of us have a friend who falls in that small group? There's no neighbor to put a face with on this issue.
McGarnicle
Footballguy
TobiasFunke
Footballguy
No, I'm saying they have the best perspective on whether it's derogatory, which is the legal standard and also what I personally care about. People get offended pretty easily over almost anything. Here we've got a significant number of people in the group who are depicted by the nickname saying it's derogatory and they don't like it. That's enough for me. I'm not sure why I should care what some white people who've never met a Native American think about whether it's offensive, or whether some hippie is upset when people use it.
Last edited by a moderator:
B-Deep
Footballguy
that is all debatable
perhaps not now, but on conception
remember as someone pointed out the man who chose this name was the most notorious racist in profesional sports. It took the federal government threatening him for him to allow a black man on his team. Was the change from Braves to Redskins innocent?
There are some accounts it was to honor a coach, no one is sure if that is true,m and it still could have been a backhanded honor by using a slur
glock
"Don't grumble, give a whistle!"
NCCommish
Footballguy
However, common wisdom appears to have settled on the notion that the term is a particularly egregious racial epithet that represents a bloody era in American history in which Indigenous Americans were hunted, killed, and forcibly displaced removed from their lands by European settlers.because not all indians believe that
so it is easy to just say "why should a few people ruin our team name"
The term was once in common use, as evidenced in Western movies, but is now largely considered a pejorative and is seldom used publicly (aside from the football team - see below). As with any term perceived to be discriminatory, different individuals may hold differing opinions of the term's appropriateness.[4]However, common wisdom appears to have settled on the notion that the term is a particularly egregious racial epithet that represents a bloody era in American history in which Indigenous Americans were hunted, killed, and forcibly displaced removed from their lands by European settlers.
that line is the kicker, you can find some native americans that are not offended. So how many is the magic number where it is offensive?
Now consider how small and politically insignificant the native american minority is, and it is easy to poo poo this as a few indians who are pissed off
B-Deep
Footballguy
I agreeHowever, common wisdom appears to have settled on the notion that the term is a particularly egregious racial epithet that represents a bloody era in American history in which Indigenous Americans were hunted, killed, and forcibly displaced removed from their lands by European settlers.because not all indians believe that
so it is easy to just say "why should a few people ruin our team name"
The term was once in common use, as evidenced in Western movies, but is now largely considered a pejorative and is seldom used publicly (aside from the football team - see below). As with any term perceived to be discriminatory, different individuals may hold differing opinions of the term's appropriateness.[4]However, common wisdom appears to have settled on the notion that the term is a particularly egregious racial epithet that represents a bloody era in American history in which Indigenous Americans were hunted, killed, and forcibly displaced removed from their lands by European settlers.
that line is the kicker, you can find some native americans that are not offended. So how many is the magic number where it is offensive?
Now consider how small and politically insignificant the native american minority is, and it is easy to poo poo this as a few indians who are pissed off
but write a poll ask a question and get some responses of I don;t care and there ya go,. you can say "see most indians don't give a ####"
TobiasFunke
Footballguy
Not to me. I care how it's perceived, not how it's intended. If you don't agree or don't think most other people agree, go into a black neighborhood and start using the N word as a term of endearment and see how it goes. If people get mad at you, tell them you didn't intend it to be a slur but a term of affection. I'm sure they'll be relieved to hear it.
Last edited by a moderator:
Officer Pete Malloy
Footballguy
Hang 10
Footballguy
With no proof to the contrary I'm pretty comfortable saying it was not intended as a slur. Can anyone produce one example in history of redskin being used as a slur?
Hang 10
Footballguy
Redskins isn't really close the N word. Its pointless to compare the two.
NCCommish
Footballguy
Are you serious? Of course it was used a slur. How many different definitions have to be posted noting it as a slur to convince you? Not to mention the original owner who named them was pretty much a racist. Even to the point he left millions to charity as long as it didn't go toward any integration. Also he was famous for not wanting black players on his team.
Hang 10
Footballguy
I'm just looking to see some examples. Saying an Indian has red skin seems more of a statement of fact more than anything .
NCCommish
Footballguy
Well then I guess darkie is OK as well. Black folks sure have dark skin sometimes, just a statement of fact after all.
The Commish
Footballguy
I am not "requiring" anything from them. I care more about their opinions than I do other people who really have nothing to do with it other than choosing to be offended. Their opinions matter more to me than anyone else. I'm simply saying I'd go with the general consensus of the "targeted" group. Everyone else is white noise IMO.
Hang 10
Footballguy
Pretty easy to find examples darkie being used as a slur. White boy would probably be a better comparison.
Similar threads
