Bob Costas ... (1 Viewer)

[bizeast]

Oklahoma, you're next...Better start thinking of new state names.

The name Oklahoma comes from the Choctaw phrase okla humma, literally meaning red people.

Why don't you quote the rest if that paragraph? The one where it says the Choctaw made that name for themselves. That doesn't even get into the difference between a derogatory phrase using 'skin' instead if people. Some of you outraged-by-the-outrage people are showing how i'll informed and horribly inept you are. Mx must've been giving a lesson in bad analogies online.

There's actually a LOT of historical evidence that shows that the Native Americans themselves were the ones who started calling themselves "Red Skinned," as a comparative to Europeans calling themselves "White," and slaves being called "Black." The point you overlook is that there are a lot of words that CAN be derogatory, but their mere usage doesn't make the intent derogatory. Some of you quick-to-be-outraged people need to consider that sometimes your outrage is not aligned with the intent or meaning of the word...even to the people you are supposedly sticking up for.

It seems based on the above you're indicating that it's OK to use the phrase if they call themselves that, but not OK if it's used in a derogatory manner. I think I'd agree with that if that's what you're saying, but then the burden of proof is to prove "Redskins" in the Washington context is intended to be derogatory. I think you'd quickly lose that one.

Before you go yelling and calling people "inept," consider reading up on the subject yourself. There are numerous historical references to Cowetaw Warriors referring to Cherokee as "The Red People." The earliest Spaniards to the area actually referred to Native Americans as having brown or "tawney" skin, often painted various colors, no reference to "red." In several Indian languages (Chocktaw and Chickasaw), their name for their own people in their OWN language loosely translates to "man" and "red" or "red people." The Native Americans are just as likely to have created or propagated the "Red Skinned" name as Caucasians. Further, the ongoing fact is that to-date, no majority of either a) the general American population, or b) A general majority of Native Americans, has ever said that Redskins is offensive. That's not even asking if it was USED with derogatory intent in the team name. That's just asking if the phrase in general is offensive.

I guess my "ill informed and inept" point here is that if this was so offensive to Native Americans, why aren't MORE Native Americans leading the drive to have the name changed? It seems to be led mostly by white journalists and people with nothing better to do than complain. After all, shouldn't the ones being offended by something be the ones who actually have some...pardon the choice of words...skin in the game?

I've answered much of this in a post in the other huge Redskins threads - take a look there.

 

[mad sweeney]

Oklahoma, you're next...Better start thinking of new state names.

The name Oklahoma comes from the Choctaw phrase okla humma, literally meaning red people.

Why don't you quote the rest if that paragraph? The one where it says the Choctaw made that name for themselves. That doesn't even get into the difference between a derogatory phrase using 'skin' instead if people. Some of you outraged-by-the-outrage people are showing how i'll informed and horribly inept you are. Mx must've been giving a lesson in bad analogies online.

There's actually a LOT of historical evidence that shows that the Native Americans themselves were the ones who started calling themselves "Red Skinned," as a comparative to Europeans calling themselves "White," and slaves being called "Black." The point you overlook is that there are a lot of words that CAN be derogatory, but their mere usage doesn't make the intent derogatory. Some of you quick-to-be-outraged people need to consider that sometimes your outrage is not aligned with the intent or meaning of the word...even to the people you are supposedly sticking up for.

It seems based on the above you're indicating that it's OK to use the phrase if they call themselves that, but not OK if it's used in a derogatory manner. I think I'd agree with that if that's what you're saying, but then the burden of proof is to prove "Redskins" in the Washington context is intended to be derogatory. I think you'd quickly lose that one.

Before you go yelling and calling people "inept," consider reading up on the subject yourself. There are numerous historical references to Cowetaw Warriors referring to Cherokee as "The Red People." The earliest Spaniards to the area actually referred to Native Americans as having brown or "tawney" skin, often painted various colors, no reference to "red." In several Indian languages (Chocktaw and Chickasaw), their name for their own people in their OWN language loosely translates to "man" and "red" or "red people." The Native Americans are just as likely to have created or propagated the "Red Skinned" name as Caucasians. Further, the ongoing fact is that to-date, no majority of either a) the general American population, or b) A general majority of Native Americans, has ever said that Redskins is offensive. That's not even asking if it was USED with derogatory intent in the team name. That's just asking if the phrase in general is offensive.

I guess my "ill informed and inept" point here is that if this was so offensive to Native Americans, why aren't MORE Native Americans leading the drive to have the name changed? It seems to be led mostly by white journalists and people with nothing better to do than complain. After all, shouldn't the ones being offended by something be the ones who actually have some...pardon the choice of words...skin in the game?

'People' is not 'skin'. And I like how you presented the origin if the Choctaw 'red people' as part if your rebuttal to me when that's exactly what I pointed out that you'd left out. Love to see you walk into a room full of black folks and call them darkies. I bet they'd really buy your explanation. You also should know that agreeing that redskins is a slur doesn't make one outraged. So if you're going to refer to me as quick to be outraged, you should check to see if I'm even outraged first.

 

[Bob Magaw]

Depends on who's using it. However, it's still closer, by factors of magnitude, to _igger than it is to aa like the poster tried to compare.

the 'n-word' is universally understood to be derogatory, racist, a pejorative, hateful, derisive, offensive, etc. etc. etc.

Redskins is none of those things, but certain guilty white people feel like it *should* be those things for reasons mostly beyond my comprehension, but probably related to some need to feel morally superior.

if the redskins themselves are not offended by the word or the team name, in what way is it like the n-word? it isn't.

"... probably related to some need to feel morally superior."

except yourself, of course...

when you spout off about other peoples ignorance, and how they "should" parse things (your way, the right way, that is), and you know what other people are thinking and feeling such that you can label others as exhibiting "manufactured outrage", that isn't an example of being morally superior...

that is being truthful and objective...

continuing to repeat yourself like a mantra doesn't make it go away...

some, ahem, native american indians are offended...

you have decided unilaterally that anybody that doesn't think like you that 10% of population being offended is insignificant and meaningless is ignorant and a product of manufactured outrage.

and maybe the number is higher... no, that couldn't be, because there are so many nationally syndicated television news programs and newspapers and other media reflecting the native american POV, surely we would know if this wasn't the case...

easier to just lazily refer back to ten year old polls that may have been flawed, expecially if they conform to our bias.

 

[pghrob]

I am offended at the use of the dash word in preceding posts. That word is not to be written, typed, or spoken, even when examining the perceived sensitivity of its use, even as a dash word.

 

[Fat Nick]

Oklahoma, you're next...Better start thinking of new state names.

The name Oklahoma comes from the Choctaw phrase okla humma, literally meaning red people.

Why don't you quote the rest if that paragraph? The one where it says the Choctaw made that name for themselves. That doesn't even get into the difference between a derogatory phrase using 'skin' instead if people. Some of you outraged-by-the-outrage people are showing how i'll informed and horribly inept you are. Mx must've been giving a lesson in bad analogies online.

There's actually a LOT of historical evidence that shows that the Native Americans themselves were the ones who started calling themselves "Red Skinned," as a comparative to Europeans calling themselves "White," and slaves being called "Black." The point you overlook is that there are a lot of words that CAN be derogatory, but their mere usage doesn't make the intent derogatory. Some of you quick-to-be-outraged people need to consider that sometimes your outrage is not aligned with the intent or meaning of the word...even to the people you are supposedly sticking up for.

It seems based on the above you're indicating that it's OK to use the phrase if they call themselves that, but not OK if it's used in a derogatory manner. I think I'd agree with that if that's what you're saying, but then the burden of proof is to prove "Redskins" in the Washington context is intended to be derogatory. I think you'd quickly lose that one.

Before you go yelling and calling people "inept," consider reading up on the subject yourself. There are numerous historical references to Cowetaw Warriors referring to Cherokee as "The Red People." The earliest Spaniards to the area actually referred to Native Americans as having brown or "tawney" skin, often painted various colors, no reference to "red." In several Indian languages (Chocktaw and Chickasaw), their name for their own people in their OWN language loosely translates to "man" and "red" or "red people." The Native Americans are just as likely to have created or propagated the "Red Skinned" name as Caucasians. Further, the ongoing fact is that to-date, no majority of either a) the general American population, or b) A general majority of Native Americans, has ever said that Redskins is offensive. That's not even asking if it was USED with derogatory intent in the team name. That's just asking if the phrase in general is offensive.

I guess my "ill informed and inept" point here is that if this was so offensive to Native Americans, why aren't MORE Native Americans leading the drive to have the name changed? It seems to be led mostly by white journalists and people with nothing better to do than complain. After all, shouldn't the ones being offended by something be the ones who actually have some...pardon the choice of words...skin in the game?

'People' is not 'skin'. And I like how you presented the origin if the Choctaw 'red people' as part if your rebuttal to me when that's exactly what I pointed out that you'd left out. Love to see you walk into a room full of black folks and call them darkies. I bet they'd really buy your explanation.You also should know that agreeing that redskins is a slur doesn't make one outraged. So if you're going to refer to me as quick to be outraged, you should check to see if I'm even outraged first.

I don't think Redskins and "darkies" is even on the same level. I think Native Americans would agree. I think that's the part you choose to ignore, and to me, that's the most important point in this whole thing. The group that is supposed to be so offended....as a majority, ISN'T OFFENDED. So why then do others feel such a strong need to be offended for them?

You are quick to be outraged mad sweeney. I'm saying that not just because of this thread, but also what I remember from the Paterno/Sandusky thread a few years ago. You make good points for your side, and you refuse to listen to any other point from any other side. You get worked up over issues you believe in, which is admirable, but you ignore things you want to ignore. I'm not going to continue the name calling that you started, and am done commenting here as nothing productive will come of this...but I will ask that you think about the bolded comment as, to me, that's the crux of this issue. Get me 50% of Native Americans offended by the NAME (not the phrase), and I'll be the first in line to petition a change. Until then...

 

[sharptongued1]

Actually I think it's a good thing to have a sometime controversial "collumn" during the week's biggest game at halftime. Expressing opinions is what journalists and the press are supposed to do, and arguing about things is what make television/newspapers/theinternet fun. Costas is always well spoken, it's not too long, and way better than showing two "experts" discuss about " why team A needs to get some more pass rushing if they want to win against this great team B quarterback" stuff.

You guys all need to take a deep breath and calm down about Costas. He is not a bad guy.

Worked well for Rush Limbaugh.

 

[sharptongued1]

Where is Costas during the world series ranting about Atlanta and Cleveland?

Where is Costas on Saturday's ranting about Illinois and Florida State?

A better question is "Why didn't Costas say one bad word about "Redskins" for the past 40 years?"

Because times change and things that were acceptable become unacceptable and this has actually been talked about quite a bit by media for at least three years (openly and more adamant).

Why is it more unacceptable now?

The ever continuing ####ification of America

 

[ragnarok628]

@Bob Magraw:

so you would be cool with the birmingham blackskins? would that be rude or a slur (or both or neither)?
This is not a word that has any currency as far as i know. I don't suppose there's anything intrinsically wrong with the term 'blackskin' in a world where black skinned people are already uncontroversially referred to and self identify as 'black'. But it doesn't really matter if i would be cool with it, it matters if black people are cool with it. If they are, great, if not, pick a better team name.

so it is reasonable to refer to native american indians as redskins? who does that, other than in a debate like this about the washington team name... if your child had to give a speech about the plight of some elements of CONTEMPORARY disenfranchised native american indians (it could be unemployment), you would tell them to feel free to substitute the word redskins interchangeably for native american indians, because it has the exact same meaning? SERIOUSLY? referencing contemporary native american indians with that term, either as individuals or as a group, is a complete anachronism... if you don't know, ask somebody...

Oh i completely agree that it's an anachronism. Misses the point entirely though, anachronistic does not mean offensive or derogatory. The word has little if any usage in the modern parlance. I don't know why this is so, but it certainly doesn't seem to be because the native americans have a problem with it.

The remainder of your point seems centered around that 1) maybe native americans ARE largely offended and 2) I personally am disingenuous, hypocritical, ignorant, iconoclastic, close minded, etc etc.

As for (1), I would think it would be the burden of the PC crowd to go find a majority or significant portion that are actually offended. maybe a 10 year old flawed poll is not the best data, but at least it's data. If there is a real problem it shouldn't be difficult to make your case instead of trying to poke holes in the case made favoring the Redskins keeping their team name.. Instead we have a few busybodies claiming it's offensive. because they say so. which, and hopefully you see what i did there, is the exact attitude that you unironically claim I am showing with 'point' (2), which is merely the ad hominem fallacy which doesn't help your argument and i feel no need/desire to defend myself from it. I'll concede that i may be lazy having not found in the rants of various privileged NON native americans against the term 'redskins' a compelling reason to uproot the status quo. Your case has not been made.

The best thing to do, of course, is simply embrace the Native American majority opinion and stop taking offense where no offense is intended.

 

[Bob Magaw]

@ragnarok...

whether the use of the word redskin is an anachronism or not (it is), multiple dictionaries i consulted lead off with the description offensive (sometimes accompanied by dated)... do you think this is a white liberal conspiracy to infiltrate dictionary compilers?

maybe you are missing the point that it is an anachronism and doesn't have contemporary usage, and isn't in the common parlance, because it is considered by some offensive (and not just native americans)? but feel free to advise kids at school with their reports or speeches that redskins can be used interchangeably with native american indians, even though it is conventionally DEFINED as a slur.

i never said native americans are largely offended, that would be distorting my actual points and putting words in my mouth... which, if your point is worth making, you probably don't need to resort to misrepresentation (straw man debate tactics).

we differed on whether 10% being offended is acceptable or not... that is a reasonable difference of opinion...

lets get the sequence straight... you entered into the conversation using terms like ignorance and manufactured outrage (later busybodies) first... in case you need it explicitly spelled out, it is disengenuous and hypocritical to complain like the following...

"But this is really just all so that some white folks can feel like they're 'better' than other white folks. so, good job, person on the message boards, you're better than me!"

when you are, once again, putting words in the mouths of others (seems to be a favored tactic of yours)... and when you came off from the start that you are "better" than others (you aren't the one who is ignorant, saddled with manufactured outrage or a busy body... that would be those with a different perspective from you)...

somehow dictionaries are wrong and you are right, by fiat, because you say so... and you know what motivates the thoughts of others, because you are a mind reader... and if they differ with you about the 10% threshold, they must be ignorant, because they think differently from you.

* you asked for evidence, the NCAI, the largest native american advocacy group, has denounced the name...

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nfl/redskins/2013/10/11/national-congress-american-indians-report-redskins-name/2965075/

below article notes that determining how many native americans are offended is a thorny issue... note also, the article doesn't conclude that disagreements about what is an acceptable number of native americans it is permissable to offend (in some kind of infernal calculus), doesn't automatically make the side opposite of yours ignorant, manufacturing outrage or busybodies...

http://washington.cbslocal.com/2013/10/08/how-many-native-americans-think-redskins-is-a-slur/

excerpt - "... she notes that the many organizations supporting her lawsuit include the Cherokee, Comanche, Oneida and Seminole tribes..."

BTW, have you made efforts to find out how native americans stand on the position... this doesn't seem possible, as you continue to be dismissive of any possible objection on the part of native americans, to the point of stating it doesn't exist (all we are hearing is from white liberals, blah, blah, blah)...

has your opinion been mostly informed perhaps, by what non-native american indians have written, about how they aren't or shouldn't be offended?

was the team name chosen because of the proud heritage of native americans?

also from second link/article...

"It was a white man who applied it to this particular football team: Owner George Preston Marshall chose the name in 1932 partly to honor the head coach, William “Lone Star” Dietz, who was known as an Indian.

“The Washington Redskins name has thus from its origin represented a positive meaning distinct from any disparagement that could be viewed in some other context,” NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell wrote in June to 10 members of Congress who challenged the name.

Marshall, however, had a reputation as a racist. He was the last NFL owner who refused to sign black players — the federal government forced him to integrate in 1962 by threatening to cancel the lease on his stadium. When he died in 1969, his will created a Redskins Foundation but stipulated that it never support “the principle of racial integration in any form.”

And Dietz, the namesake Redskin, may not have even been a real Indian. Dietz served jail time for charges that he falsely registered for the draft as an Indian in order to avoid service. According to an investigation by the Indian Country Today newspaper, he stole the identity of a missing Oglala Sioux man."

after rethinking things, that is certainly an honorable legacy i can get behind!

 

[KellysHeroes]

The Washington Tea Party, that be a good name

 

[Binky The Doormat]

Saw a meme the other day - stoned guy, "What if they left the name redskins and changed the logo to a potato?"

I chortled.

 

[KellysHeroes]

The Washington Cornball Brothers

 

[Mario Kart]

Where is Costas during the world series ranting about Atlanta and Cleveland?

Where is Costas on Saturday's ranting about Illinois and Florida State?

Did Costas mention Kansas City or Seattle tonight?

Yeah, if Costas on tv means big money... spread the wealth and plaster his face with these other sports including the NHL.

1. In a time machine back to the year 1995?

2. Is he supposed to be offended on behalf of birds?

Don't stop him now, he's rolling...

Wow, you need to get a clue as well.

World Series <> Atlanta "Braves" and Cleveland "Indians"

Kansas City "Chiefs" and Seattle "Seahawks" (the picture of the Seahawk is taken from Indian totem poles. The logo is the key here.

Birds? Um, sure.

Finally, somebody going to bat for our fine feathered community... because CLEARLY the NFL franchise name that should be under the most scrutiny is the Arizona Cardinals... either change the color of the beak to RED (Cardinals - as we all know - do not have yellow bills), or change the team name to the Arizona Pyrrhuloxias (which would be incredibly appropriate given their range in North America).

Whew, I've been holding that one in for a while. This thread is really cleansing.

Wow, reading comprehension down, huh? And, as was pointed out, the Arizona Cardinals are not named after the bird.

 

[bonesman]

The Washington Alcoholic Casino Owners has a nice ring, eh?

 

[ShamrockPride]

The Washington Liars.

Fits the bill for our Capitol pretty well huh?

 

[wormburner]

The Washington Liars.

Fits the bill for our Capitol pretty well huh?

The Washington Bozos.

No offense intended to people with red noses and enormous feet.

 

[Devine Intervention]

Oklahoma, you're next...Better start thinking of new state names.

The name Oklahoma comes from the Choctaw phrase okla humma, literally meaning red people.

Why don't you quote the rest if that paragraph? The one where it says the Choctaw made that name for themselves. That doesn't even get into the difference between a derogatory phrase using 'skin' instead if people. Some of you outraged-by-the-outrage people are showing how i'll informed and horribly inept you are. Mx must've been giving a lesson in bad analogies online.

There's actually a LOT of historical evidence that shows that the Native Americans themselves were the ones who started calling themselves "Red Skinned," as a comparative to Europeans calling themselves "White," and slaves being called "Black." The point you overlook is that there are a lot of words that CAN be derogatory, but their mere usage doesn't make the intent derogatory. Some of you quick-to-be-outraged people need to consider that sometimes your outrage is not aligned with the intent or meaning of the word...even to the people you are supposedly sticking up for.

It seems based on the above you're indicating that it's OK to use the phrase if they call themselves that, but not OK if it's used in a derogatory manner. I think I'd agree with that if that's what you're saying, but then the burden of proof is to prove "Redskins" in the Washington context is intended to be derogatory. I think you'd quickly lose that one.

Before you go yelling and calling people "inept," consider reading up on the subject yourself. There are numerous historical references to Cowetaw Warriors referring to Cherokee as "The Red People." The earliest Spaniards to the area actually referred to Native Americans as having brown or "tawney" skin, often painted various colors, no reference to "red." In several Indian languages (Chocktaw and Chickasaw), their name for their own people in their OWN language loosely translates to "man" and "red" or "red people." The Native Americans are just as likely to have created or propagated the "Red Skinned" name as Caucasians. Further, the ongoing fact is that to-date, no majority of either a) the general American population, or b) A general majority of Native Americans, has ever said that Redskins is offensive. That's not even asking if it was USED with derogatory intent in the team name. That's just asking if the phrase in general is offensive.

I guess my "ill informed and inept" point here is that if this was so offensive to Native Americans, why aren't MORE Native Americans leading the drive to have the name changed? It seems to be led mostly by white journalists and people with nothing better to do than complain. After all, shouldn't the ones being offended by something be the ones who actually have some...pardon the choice of words...skin in the game?

'People' is not 'skin'. And I like how you presented the origin if the Choctaw 'red people' as part if your rebuttal to me when that's exactly what I pointed out that you'd left out. Love to see you walk into a room full of black folks and call them darkies. I bet they'd really buy your explanation.You also should know that agreeing that redskins is a slur doesn't make one outraged. So if you're going to refer to me as quick to be outraged, you should check to see if I'm even outraged first.

That is so stupid. Sorry but yes, red people and red skin is probably the same thing. Im assuming they probably called themselves the red people because of their red skin. Black people call themselves black people so they are called black. Its as simple as that. That term will be ok until people use it in a bad way and then that too will be offensive. But Redskin was never used offensive. It is the same as black people calling themselves black.

As for the example of going into a room and calling them redskins, like addressing them as a redskin, that is also so stupid. Black people are ok with the term black, but you don't go into a room of black people and say hey you blacks. Same for the term redskin. Im sure there are plenty of native americans that for one reason or another refer to americans as the white man, a name for a group of people based on their skin color.

 

[bizeast]

The debate on semantics in this thread is painfully low-brow - good lord guys.

 

[eurotrashman]

There are a lot angry white guys in here who seem pretty ignorant about the history of this country.

 

[pghrob]

Clarence Page from 1992 held an opinion

http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1734&dat=19920921&id=31ccAAAAIBAJ&sjid=8FIEAAAAIBAJ&pg=2483,1880076

 

[zftcg]

2. Is he supposed to be offended on behalf of birds?

No, but perhaps the Fighting Irish...in which his network makes big, exclusive $$$ on. Or is it ok to use blatantly-negative ethnic stereotypes?

Except that Notre Dame is a Catholic school that deliberately chose the name 'Fighting Irish" to represent "everyone who suffers from discrimination; to everyone who has an uphill fight for the elemental decencies, and the basic Christian principles woven into the texture of our nation”.

The Redskins, meanwhile, were given their name by a notorious racist.

But other than that, the two situations are exactly the same.

 

[Devine Intervention]

2. Is he supposed to be offended on behalf of birds?

No, but perhaps the Fighting Irish...in which his network makes big, exclusive $$$ on. Or is it ok to use blatantly-negative ethnic stereotypes?

Except that Notre Dame is a Catholic school that deliberately chose the name 'Fighting Irish" to represent "everyone who suffers from discrimination; to everyone who has an uphill fight for the elemental decencies, and the basic Christian principles woven into the texture of our nation”.

The Redskins, meanwhile, were given their name by a notorious racist.

But other than that, the two situations are exactly the same.

George Preston Marshall created the term Redskin??

And the logo for Fighting Irish has a guy putting his fist up in a physical fighting motion. So yea that doesn't seem like a great stereo type for the Irish. On top of that, I don't think the term Fighting Irish is meant bad, just like the term Redskin is meant bad. People just need to stop being so sensitive. It only becomes an issue when people make it an issue.

I love it how sensitive people are about something that isn't even their own fight.

 

[Devine Intervention]

On that topic, its so annoying how its the most offensive thing in the world to make a negative comment about a minority but you can make fun of "white" people, call them whatever you want, basically do or say anything derogatory about them because they are considered a majority race?

 

[Dizzy]

Gotta hand it to Dan Snyder though... this whole name issue really takes the focus off of how lousy his team is.

 

[mad sweeney]

Oklahoma, you're next...Better start thinking of new state names.

The name Oklahoma comes from the Choctaw phrase okla humma, literally meaning red people.

Why don't you quote the rest if that paragraph? The one where it says the Choctaw made that name for themselves. That doesn't even get into the difference between a derogatory phrase using 'skin' instead if people. Some of you outraged-by-the-outrage people are showing how i'll informed and horribly inept you are. Mx must've been giving a lesson in bad analogies online.

There's actually a LOT of historical evidence that shows that the Native Americans themselves were the ones who started calling themselves "Red Skinned," as a comparative to Europeans calling themselves "White," and slaves being called "Black." The point you overlook is that there are a lot of words that CAN be derogatory, but their mere usage doesn't make the intent derogatory. Some of you quick-to-be-outraged people need to consider that sometimes your outrage is not aligned with the intent or meaning of the word...even to the people you are supposedly sticking up for.

It seems based on the above you're indicating that it's OK to use the phrase if they call themselves that, but not OK if it's used in a derogatory manner. I think I'd agree with that if that's what you're saying, but then the burden of proof is to prove "Redskins" in the Washington context is intended to be derogatory. I think you'd quickly lose that one.

Before you go yelling and calling people "inept," consider reading up on the subject yourself. There are numerous historical references to Cowetaw Warriors referring to Cherokee as "The Red People." The earliest Spaniards to the area actually referred to Native Americans as having brown or "tawney" skin, often painted various colors, no reference to "red." In several Indian languages (Chocktaw and Chickasaw), their name for their own people in their OWN language loosely translates to "man" and "red" or "red people." The Native Americans are just as likely to have created or propagated the "Red Skinned" name as Caucasians. Further, the ongoing fact is that to-date, no majority of either a) the general American population, or b) A general majority of Native Americans, has ever said that Redskins is offensive. That's not even asking if it was USED with derogatory intent in the team name. That's just asking if the phrase in general is offensive.

I guess my "ill informed and inept" point here is that if this was so offensive to Native Americans, why aren't MORE Native Americans leading the drive to have the name changed? It seems to be led mostly by white journalists and people with nothing better to do than complain. After all, shouldn't the ones being offended by something be the ones who actually have some...pardon the choice of words...skin in the game?

'People' is not 'skin'. And I like how you presented the origin if the Choctaw 'red people' as part if your rebuttal to me when that's exactly what I pointed out that you'd left out. Love to see you walk into a room full of black folks and call them darkies. I bet they'd really buy your explanation.You also should know that agreeing that redskins is a slur doesn't make one outraged. So if you're going to refer to me as quick to be outraged, you should check to see if I'm even outraged first.

I don't think Redskins and "darkies" is even on the same level. I think Native Americans would agree. I think that's the part you choose to ignore, and to me, that's the most important point in this whole thing. The group that is supposed to be so offended....as a majority, ISN'T OFFENDED. So why then do others feel such a strong need to be offended for them?

You are quick to be outraged mad sweeney. I'm saying that not just because of this thread, but also what I remember from the Paterno/Sandusky thread a few years ago. You make good points for your side, and you refuse to listen to any other point from any other side. You get worked up over issues you believe in, which is admirable, but you ignore things you want to ignore. I'm not going to continue the name calling that you started, and am done commenting here as nothing productive will come of this...but I will ask that you think about the bolded comment as, to me, that's the crux of this issue. Get me 50% of Native Americans offended by the NAME (not the phrase), and I'll be the first in line to petition a change. Until then...

So I was quick to be outraged about a pedophile who was free to practice for a few decades? That's your comeback for me pointing out that I'm not outraged, have expressed no outrage about this topic? That's about as weak as the rest of your "arguments", but it does seem to line up nicely with you deciding to leave the discussion after being called out for being wrong.

 

[mad sweeney]

@ragnarok...

whether the use of the word redskin is an anachronism or not (it is), multiple dictionaries i consulted lead off with the description offensive (sometimes accompanied by dated)... do you think this is a white liberal conspiracy to infiltrate dictionary compilers?

maybe you are missing the point that it is an anachronism and doesn't have contemporary usage, and isn't in the common parlance, because it is considered by some offensive (and not just native americans)? but feel free to advise kids at school with their reports or speeches that redskins can be used interchangeably with native american indians, even though it is conventionally DEFINED as a slur.

i never said native americans are largely offended, that would be distorting my actual points and putting words in my mouth... which, if your point is worth making, you probably don't need to resort to misrepresentation (straw man debate tactics).

we differed on whether 10% being offended is acceptable or not... that is a reasonable difference of opinion...

lets get the sequence straight... you entered into the conversation using terms like ignorance and manufactured outrage (later busybodies) first... in case you need it explicitly spelled out, it is disengenuous and hypocritical to complain like the following...

"But this is really just all so that some white folks can feel like they're 'better' than other white folks. so, good job, person on the message boards, you're better than me!"

when you are, once again, putting words in the mouths of others (seems to be a favored tactic of yours)... and when you came off from the start that you are "better" than others (you aren't the one who is ignorant, saddled with manufactured outrage or a busy body... that would be those with a different perspective from you)...

somehow dictionaries are wrong and you are right, by fiat, because you say so... and you know what motivates the thoughts of others, because you are a mind reader... and if they differ with you about the 10% threshold, they must be ignorant, because they think differently from you.

* you asked for evidence, the NCAI, the largest native american advocacy group, has denounced the name...

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nfl/redskins/2013/10/11/national-congress-american-indians-report-redskins-name/2965075/

below article notes that determining how many native americans are offended is a thorny issue... note also, the article doesn't conclude that disagreements about what is an acceptable number of native americans it is permissable to offend (in some kind of infernal calculus), doesn't automatically make the side opposite of yours ignorant, manufacturing outrage or busybodies...

http://washington.cbslocal.com/2013/10/08/how-many-native-americans-think-redskins-is-a-slur/

excerpt - "... she notes that the many organizations supporting her lawsuit include the Cherokee, Comanche, Oneida and Seminole tribes..."

BTW, have you made efforts to find out how native americans stand on the position... this doesn't seem possible, as you continue to be dismissive of any possible objection on the part of native americans, to the point of stating it doesn't exist (all we are hearing is from white liberals, blah, blah, blah)...

has your opinion been mostly informed perhaps, by what non-native american indians have written, about how they aren't or shouldn't be offended?

was the team name chosen because of the proud heritage of native americans?

also from second link/article...

"It was a white man who applied it to this particular football team: Owner George Preston Marshall chose the name in 1932 partly to honor the head coach, William “Lone Star” Dietz, who was known as an Indian.

“The Washington Redskins name has thus from its origin represented a positive meaning distinct from any disparagement that could be viewed in some other context,” NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell wrote in June to 10 members of Congress who challenged the name.

Marshall, however, had a reputation as a racist. He was the last NFL owner who refused to sign black players — the federal government forced him to integrate in 1962 by threatening to cancel the lease on his stadium. When he died in 1969, his will created a Redskins Foundation but stipulated that it never support “the principle of racial integration in any form.”

And Dietz, the namesake Redskin, may not have even been a real Indian. Dietz served jail time for charges that he falsely registered for the draft as an Indian in order to avoid service. According to an investigation by the Indian Country Today newspaper, he stole the identity of a missing Oglala Sioux man."

after rethinking things, that is certainly an honorable legacy i can get behind!

Hey, I heard a rapper call his friend "my _igga", so I'm just going to use it like that. I'm sure I'll have no problem explaining to people that I took it from positive usage! Gonna be fun!

 

[mad sweeney]

2. Is he supposed to be offended on behalf of birds?

No, but perhaps the Fighting Irish...in which his network makes big, exclusive $$$ on. Or is it ok to use blatantly-negative ethnic stereotypes?

Except that Notre Dame is a Catholic school that deliberately chose the name 'Fighting Irish" to represent "everyone who suffers from discrimination; to everyone who has an uphill fight for the elemental decencies, and the basic Christian principles woven into the texture of our nation”.

The Redskins, meanwhile, were given their name by a notorious racist.

But other than that, the two situations are exactly the same.

George Preston Marshall created the term Redskin??

And the logo for Fighting Irish has a guy putting his fist up in a physical fighting motion. So yea that doesn't seem like a great stereo type for the Irish. On top of that, I don't think the term Fighting Irish is meant bad, just like the term Redskin is meant bad. People just need to stop being so sensitive. It only becomes an issue when people make it an issue.

I love it how sensitive people are about something that isn't even their own fight.

Or how other people who aren't affected tell others what they should be sensitive about.

btw, if you actually comprehend what was written in the post you replied to, you'l CLEARLY see that it says Preston "named the team", not "created the term". Pretty much sums up your position and intelligence on the issue.

 

[spider321]

I'm offended that mad weenie still has posting privileges.

 

[mad sweeney]

Oklahoma, you're next...Better start thinking of new state names.

The name Oklahoma comes from the Choctaw phrase okla humma, literally meaning red people.

Why don't you quote the rest if that paragraph? The one where it says the Choctaw made that name for themselves. That doesn't even get into the difference between a derogatory phrase using 'skin' instead if people. Some of you outraged-by-the-outrage people are showing how i'll informed and horribly inept you are. Mx must've been giving a lesson in bad analogies online.

There's actually a LOT of historical evidence that shows that the Native Americans themselves were the ones who started calling themselves "Red Skinned," as a comparative to Europeans calling themselves "White," and slaves being called "Black." The point you overlook is that there are a lot of words that CAN be derogatory, but their mere usage doesn't make the intent derogatory. Some of you quick-to-be-outraged people need to consider that sometimes your outrage is not aligned with the intent or meaning of the word...even to the people you are supposedly sticking up for.

It seems based on the above you're indicating that it's OK to use the phrase if they call themselves that, but not OK if it's used in a derogatory manner. I think I'd agree with that if that's what you're saying, but then the burden of proof is to prove "Redskins" in the Washington context is intended to be derogatory. I think you'd quickly lose that one.

Before you go yelling and calling people "inept," consider reading up on the subject yourself. There are numerous historical references to Cowetaw Warriors referring to Cherokee as "The Red People." The earliest Spaniards to the area actually referred to Native Americans as having brown or "tawney" skin, often painted various colors, no reference to "red." In several Indian languages (Chocktaw and Chickasaw), their name for their own people in their OWN language loosely translates to "man" and "red" or "red people." The Native Americans are just as likely to have created or propagated the "Red Skinned" name as Caucasians. Further, the ongoing fact is that to-date, no majority of either a) the general American population, or b) A general majority of Native Americans, has ever said that Redskins is offensive. That's not even asking if it was USED with derogatory intent in the team name. That's just asking if the phrase in general is offensive.

I guess my "ill informed and inept" point here is that if this was so offensive to Native Americans, why aren't MORE Native Americans leading the drive to have the name changed? It seems to be led mostly by white journalists and people with nothing better to do than complain. After all, shouldn't the ones being offended by something be the ones who actually have some...pardon the choice of words...skin in the game?

'People' is not 'skin'. And I like how you presented the origin if the Choctaw 'red people' as part if your rebuttal to me when that's exactly what I pointed out that you'd left out. Love to see you walk into a room full of black folks and call them darkies. I bet they'd really buy your explanation.You also should know that agreeing that redskins is a slur doesn't make one outraged. So if you're going to refer to me as quick to be outraged, you should check to see if I'm even outraged first.

That is so stupid. Sorry but yes, red people and red skin is probably the same thing. Im assuming they probably called themselves the red people because of their red skin. Black people call themselves black people so they are called black. Its as simple as that. That term will be ok until people use it in a bad way and then that too will be offensive. But Redskin was never used offensive. It is the same as black people calling themselves black.

As for the example of going into a room and calling them redskins, like addressing them as a redskin, that is also so stupid. Black people are ok with the term black, but you don't go into a room of black people and say hey you blacks. Same for the term redskin. Im sure there are plenty of native americans that for one reason or another refer to americans as the white man, a name for a group of people based on their skin color.

There aren't enough s for the bolded.

Here are a few tips:

-white man is not a slur and therefore is a stupid counter "point"

-skin and people are different, skin color may be a reason for them calling themselves red people, but it wasn't them that coined the term redskin any more than blacks coined the term _igger by referring to themselves as black. You saying they "probably" are the same thing is based on nothing other than your lame attempts to try and produce any sort of reasonable argument. If we're going to just make #### up and call that the basis of an argument...

- both those above have this false equivalency attached to it by you for some inane reason: a description or term for a people that involves or is based on skin color is not necessarily a slur. Some are, but not all are.

 

[zftcg]

On that topic, its so annoying how its the most offensive thing in the world to make a negative comment about a minority but you can make fun of "white" people, call them whatever you want, basically do or say anything derogatory about them because they are considered a majority race?

Fortunately for you, there's an entire website documenting your struggle.

 

[Neofight]

2. Is he supposed to be offended on behalf of birds?

No, but perhaps the Fighting Irish...in which his network makes big, exclusive $$$ on. Or is it ok to use blatantly-negative ethnic stereotypes?

Except that Notre Dame is a Catholic school that deliberately chose the name 'Fighting Irish" to represent "everyone who suffers from discrimination; to everyone who has an uphill fight for the elemental decencies, and the basic Christian principles woven into the texture of our nation”.

The Redskins, meanwhile, were given their name by a notorious racist.

But other than that, the two situations are exactly the same.

George Preston Marshall created the term Redskin??

Check your fallacies at the door, please...

Marshall has gained infamy for his intractable opposition to having African-Americans on his roster. According to professor Charles Ross, "For 24 years Marshall was identified as the leading racistin the NFL".[3] Though the league had previously had a sprinkling of black players, blacks were excluded from all NFL teams just one year after the then-Boston Braves entered the league.

While the rest of the league began signing individual blacks in 1946 and actually drafting blacks in 1949, Marshall held out until 1962 before signing a black player. Along with his own personal views, Marshall refused to sign African-American players because of a desire to appeal to Southern markets. For most of his tenure as owner, the Redskins were the southernmost team in the NFL.[4] His intractability was routinely mocked in Washington Post columns by legendary writer Shirley Povich, who sarcastically used terms from the civil rights movement and related court cases to describe games: for instance, he once wrote that Jim Brown "integrated" the end zone, making the score "separate but unequal".

Finally, in 1962, Interior Secretary Stewart Udall and Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy issued an ultimatum — unless Marshall signed a black player, the government would revoke the Redskins' 30-year lease on the year-old D.C. Stadium (now Robert F. Kennedy Memorial Stadium), which had been paid for by government money and was owned by the Washington city government (which, then and now, is formally an arm of the federal government). Marshall's chief response was to make Ernie Davis, Syracuse's all-American running back, his number-one draft choice for 1962. Davis, however, demanded a trade, saying, "I won't play for that S.O.B." He got his wish, as the team sent him toCleveland for All-Pro Bobby Mitchell. Mitchell was the first African American football player to play a game for the Redskins, and he played with the team for several years, initially at running back, but he made his biggest impact at wide receiver.

 

[drummer]

Nicely played, Mr. Costas. Your fecal summation has not only drawn flies to your poop, but has now created more poop in the Pool which draws the usual flies, swarming and proclaiming their intellectual property on said poop. I was hoping you would explain why a high school would not call themselves the Sun Devils, due to the parents who have a lot of money to open said school deemed that name Satanic, and rather call themselves the Aztecs, which of course was an ancient indigenous tribe conquered by the same European conquest of the New World .

Jeebus Costas, if you really wanted to target an industry that has made millions off of diminishing and placating Native Americans , and pin a franchise face of who represented the American decimation of that culture, well we would have to decide who is the best face for that.

Could be a toss up between John Wayne and Tom Mix. No way you dare go near Audie Murphy.

"Dey darker den us! WOOF" - Mel Brooks

 

[Bob Magaw]

so its not a slur, but it is rude?

yes. those do not mean the same thing.

it would be rude to refer to an individual by alluding to skin color, but referring to a group that way makes it OK?

well, again, yes. If you are talking about a group of people sharing a particular trait, it is reasonable to reference that group by their common trait.

* some of the polls cited (that are ten years old) show something like 10% are offended... you used the word "largely"... what percent are you comfortable with or consider permissable to be offended (20-30-40%?)... you are talking about manufactured outrage and ignorance of the term... are the native american indians that are troubled and disturbed by the reference ignorant... is their outrage manufactured? maybe this isn't a case of you seeing things more clearly or being more eloquent, but of you being more willing to allow some segments of the population be outraged... and that enables you to profess the ignorance of others.

I suppose that's a good question. Where DO you draw the line? I don't have a real answer for that. definitely somewhere above 10% though... but then i've never been a big believer in anyone's right not to be offended. Regardless, for the purposes of THIS "controversy" all we have been hearing from are those offended *on behalf* of others. I think If there were some real issue with the term, there'd be more actually offended people involved in the discussion. The ignorance, to me, lies with those offended on another's behalf not understanding the term and making assumptions about the intent behind the word.

But this is really just all so that some white folks can feel like they're 'better' than other white folks. so, good job, person on the message boards, you're better than me!

i'd like to revisit your second response...

there is something that is almost clinical about it (or, saying something is completely natural if it suits your refutation purposes... whereas it would probably come off as pretty bizarre as a stand alone point, not embedded in this debate)... elsewhere you acknowledged it would be rude to refer to an individual as a "redskin"... but to use the term on a group... eminently reasonable to call them redskins!

so another hypothetical to bridge the gap of apparent discrepancy from individual to group...

you need to get to a meeting of a native american indian organization (perhaps you are a journalist covering the NFL team name debate and looking for interviews on their views)... it is at a convention center, where there are simultaneous meetings for african american (NAACP) and asian organizations...

you arrive in the lobby looking for directions, where you coincidentally see three people standing together, representing each group...

you address all of them, like it was the most natural thing in the world...

i'm not looking for the blackskins or the yellowskins, but the redskins organization meeting... can you point me in the right direction?

SSUUURRRREEEEE you would.

i could see you excusing yourself from this hypothetical scenario (though you did already state such usage would be perfectly reasonable, even after a chance to clarify your position - somewhat like al campanis being interviewed by ted koppel) on the grounds that those terms aren't in the common parlance...

but that doesn't have to be the only reason a normal person wouldn't utter such archaic descriptive terms... perhaps it would be uncomfortable realizing you could be using a term they might find objectionable and offensive? why would you do that if you don't have to?

this leads to imo part of the fallacy of how the debate has been framed...

instead of asking how many people it is permissable to offend with what they call a slur (snyder's attitude and stance, reading between the lines, especially his earlier, less sophisticated one - we are NEVER changing it, in CAPS... the positive associations snyder, and many fans and backers, have with the name, its legacy and history, overrides the fact that a smaller, less vocal group may find it offensive and a slur... their concerns are to be dismissed as trivial and unimportant)... why is it necessary to offend anybody?

what if the name was changed to the washington indians (or american indians, or native americans)... that would seem to remove the slur controversy element... and since snyder and his supporters have claimed all along that redskins "really" means that and is intended synonymously and interchangeably with those terms anyways, what harm could their possibly be in making the switch?

would such a subtle name morphing or repurposing kill off any and all associations the franchise had with the past?

maybe thinking this is reasonable is an example of ignorance, manufactured outrage and being a busy body...

or maybe thinking such a compromise is unreasonable is an example of stubborn cussedness and obstinancy.

to the thread at large, some have focused on intent as important... i don't doubt that snyder has positive connotations with the word... but it is possible to use slurs unconsciously... maybe there are gradations of wrongness, but they can still both be wrong... one person could say knowingly and hurtfully to an african american, aware of perpetuating an offensive stereotype, that they must be good dancers... one could also say this out of ignorance, thinking it is a compliment... the lack of malicious intent in the latter case doesn't make it not a slur.

other people have argued on basis of numbers and the majority... if the majority thinks something, does that necessarily make it right... for instance, what percent of the (purported) native american indians in commonly cited poll knew that the original owner of the redskins was a notorious racist? maybe 10%, maybe less? for that matter, how many on this board knew it? 10% or less?

if we were to conduct a new poll today, and preface the poll with a quick education and history lesson on the origin of the redskins team name, as well as ownership, like so...

though the current owner insists that the origin of the name had to do with an honoring of native american heroism and positive traits and attributes... it may have actually referred to a coach (and the owner allegedly had him dress up in war paint and feathers before games)... who was thought to be an american indian... but maybe wasn't... who may have been arrested for impersonating an native american, in order to dodge the draft... oh, and by the way, the original owner was a notorious racist, who was the last to integrate, and that only because he was forced to by the US government on penalty of withdrawing his stadium lease if he didn't (reportedly once said... "he would hire negroes when the harlem globetrotters started hiring whites.")... his initial african american draftee, ernie davis, wouldn't even play for him because he was such a notorious racist... he left $6 million for a charitable organization bearing his name... with the stipulation that it could never be used "for any purpose which supports or employs the principal of racial integration."

NOW, that you know the oranizational background and original ownership history of this humanitarian, and his legacy of racism... are you still OK with him coopting a name that could be construed as racist...

and maybe ask a second question... in an earlier poll, about 10% of the population polled, fellow native american indians, claimed to be offended... it may have been higher, but there could have been polling flaws... if you know it offended 10% of your population, would you be more likely to reconsider your vote?

and a third... if in changing the name redskins you could still retain a team name like indians (or variants), which could still honor the native american legacy and heritage (which snyder claims is his intention), and in a less controversial manner, would you be more willing to get on board with changing the name...

if the poll was conducted like this, it is very possible the numbers would be (significantly) higher than 10% in favor of a name change... but i doubt if snyder would ever want to conduct that kind of poll.

 

[Devine Intervention]

so its not a slur, but it is rude?

yes. those do not mean the same thing.

it would be rude to refer to an individual by alluding to skin color, but referring to a group that way makes it OK?

well, again, yes. If you are talking about a group of people sharing a particular trait, it is reasonable to reference that group by their common trait.

* some of the polls cited (that are ten years old) show something like 10% are offended... you used the word "largely"... what percent are you comfortable with or consider permissable to be offended (20-30-40%?)... you are talking about manufactured outrage and ignorance of the term... are the native american indians that are troubled and disturbed by the reference ignorant... is their outrage manufactured? maybe this isn't a case of you seeing things more clearly or being more eloquent, but of you being more willing to allow some segments of the population be outraged... and that enables you to profess the ignorance of others.

I suppose that's a good question. Where DO you draw the line? I don't have a real answer for that. definitely somewhere above 10% though... but then i've never been a big believer in anyone's right not to be offended. Regardless, for the purposes of THIS "controversy" all we have been hearing from are those offended *on behalf* of others. I think If there were some real issue with the term, there'd be more actually offended people involved in the discussion. The ignorance, to me, lies with those offended on another's behalf not understanding the term and making assumptions about the intent behind the word.

But this is really just all so that some white folks can feel like they're 'better' than other white folks. so, good job, person on the message boards, you're better than me!i'd like to revisit your second response...

there is something that is almost clinical about it (or, saying something is completely natural if it suits your refutation purposes... whereas it would probably come off as pretty bizarre as a stand alone point, not embedded in this debate)... elsewhere you acknowledged it would be rude to refer to an individual as a "redskin"... but to use the term on a group... eminently reasonable to call them redskins!

so another hypothetical to bridge the gap of apparent discrepancy from individual to group...

you need to get to a meeting of a native american indian organization (perhaps you are a journalist covering the NFL team name debate and looking for interviews on their views)... it is at a convention center, where there are simultaneous meetings for african american (NAACP) and asian organizations...

you arrive in the lobby looking for directions, where you coincidentally see three people standing together, representing each group...

you address all of them, like it was the most natural thing in the world...

i'm not looking for the blackskins or the yellowskins, but the redskins organization meeting... can you point me in the right direction?

SSUUURRRREEEEE you would.

i could see you excusing yourself from this hypothetical scenario (though you did already state such usage would be perfectly reasonable, even after a chance to clarify your position - somewhat like al campanis being interviewed by ted koppel) on the grounds that those terms aren't in the common parlance...

but that doesn't have to be the only reason a normal person wouldn't utter such archaic descriptive terms... perhaps it would be uncomfortable realizing you could be using a term they might find objectionable and offensive? why would you do that if you don't have to?

this leads to imo part of the fallacy of how the debate has been framed...

instead of asking how many people it is permissable to offend with what they call a slur (snyder's attitude and stance, reading between the lines, especially his earlier, less sophisticated one - we are NEVER changing it, in CAPS... the positive associations snyder, and many fans and backers, have with the name, its legacy and history, overrides the fact that a smaller, less vocal group may find it offensive and a slur... their concerns are to be dismissed as trivial and unimportant)... why is it necessary to offend anybody?

what if the name was changed to the washington indians (or american indians, or native americans)... that would seem to remove the slur controversy element... and since snyder and his supporters have claimed all along that redskins "really" means that and is intended synonymously and interchangeably with those terms anyways, what harm could their possibly be in making the switch?

would such a subtle name morphing or repurposing kill off any and all associations the franchise had with the past?

maybe thinking this is reasonable is an example of ignorance, manufactured outrage and being a busy body...

or maybe thinking such a compromise is unreasonable is an example of stubborn cussedness and obstinancy.

to the thread at large, some have focused on intent as important... i don't doubt that snyder has positive connotations with the word... but it is possible to use slurs unconsciously... maybe there are gradations of wrongness, but they can still both be wrong... one person could say knowingly and hurtfully to an african american, aware of perpetuating an offensive stereotype, that they must be good dancers... one could also say this out of ignorance, thinking it is a compliment... the lack of malicious intent in the latter case doesn't make it not a slur.

other people have argued on basis of numbers and the majority... if the majority thinks something, does that necessarily make it right... for instance, what percent of the (purported) native american indians in commonly cited poll knew that the original owner of the redskins was a notorious racist? maybe 10%, maybe less? for that matter, how many on this board knew it? 10% or less?

if we were to conduct a new poll today, and preface the poll with a quick education and history lesson on the origin of the redskins team name, as well as ownership, like so...

though the current owner insists that the origin of the name had to do with an honoring of native american heroism and positive traits and attributes... it may have actually referred to a coach (and the owner allegedly had him dress up in war paint and feathers before games)... who was thought to be an american indian... but maybe wasn't... who may have been arrested for impersonating an native american, in order to dodge the draft... oh, and by the way, the original owner was a notorious racist, who was the last to integrate, and that only because he was forced to by the US government on penalty of withdrawing his stadium lease if he didn't (reportedly once said... "he would hire negroes when the harlem globetrotters started hiring whites.")... his initial african american draftee, ernie davis, wouldn't even play for him because he was such a notorious racist... he left $6 million for a charitable organization bearing his name... with the stipulation that it could never be used "for any purpose which supports or employs the principal of racial integration."

NOW, that you know the oranizational background and original ownership history of this humanitarian, and his legacy of racism... are you still OK with him coopting a name that could be construed as racist...

and maybe ask a second question... in an earlier poll, about 10% of the population polled, fellow native american indians, claimed to be offended... it may have been higher, but there could have been polling flaws... if you know it offended 10% of your population, would you be more likely to reconsider your vote?

and a third... if in changing the name redskins you could still retain a team name like indians (or variants), which could still honor the native american legacy and heritage (which snyder claims is his intention), and in a less controversial manner, would you be more willing to get on board with changing the name...

if the poll was conducted like this, it is very possible the numbers would be (significantly) higher than 10% in favor of a name change... but i doubt if snyder would ever want to conduct that kind of poll.

The numbers could be higher, but they could be lower. And honestly if its under 10 percent, well realistically if you poll people about ANYTHING, atleast 10 percent would probably be offended at anything. There are always people offended by anything just for the sake of feeling they have a say.

 

[Bob Magaw]

that sounds like an excellent justification to brush off dissent as meaningless.

congrats, maybe synder can use that!

seriously, i've learned (or been reminded of) some things today that i didn't know (or had forgotten)...

but snyder's protests that the history of the redskins organization is emblematic of the proud legacy and tradition of native american heroism (rooted in inclusiveness! ), etc, rings a little hollow and empty in the context of original owner marshall's actual stated beliefs on race relations...

not that the present has to necessarily be inextricably linked with the past... but since the past sounds like pretty much of a disaster, as far as marshall is concerned, maybe best to not go there... he doesn't make for the greatest front man or poster boy for fairness, equality and sensitivity...

 

[mad sweeney]

so its not a slur, but it is rude?

yes. those do not mean the same thing.

it would be rude to refer to an individual by alluding to skin color, but referring to a group that way makes it OK?

well, again, yes. If you are talking about a group of people sharing a particular trait, it is reasonable to reference that group by their common trait.

* some of the polls cited (that are ten years old) show something like 10% are offended... you used the word "largely"... what percent are you comfortable with or consider permissable to be offended (20-30-40%?)... you are talking about manufactured outrage and ignorance of the term... are the native american indians that are troubled and disturbed by the reference ignorant... is their outrage manufactured? maybe this isn't a case of you seeing things more clearly or being more eloquent, but of you being more willing to allow some segments of the population be outraged... and that enables you to profess the ignorance of others.

I suppose that's a good question. Where DO you draw the line? I don't have a real answer for that. definitely somewhere above 10% though... but then i've never been a big believer in anyone's right not to be offended. Regardless, for the purposes of THIS "controversy" all we have been hearing from are those offended *on behalf* of others. I think If there were some real issue with the term, there'd be more actually offended people involved in the discussion. The ignorance, to me, lies with those offended on another's behalf not understanding the term and making assumptions about the intent behind the word.

But this is really just all so that some white folks can feel like they're 'better' than other white folks. so, good job, person on the message boards, you're better than me!i'd like to revisit your second response...

there is something that is almost clinical about it (or, saying something is completely natural if it suits your refutation purposes... whereas it would probably come off as pretty bizarre as a stand alone point, not embedded in this debate)... elsewhere you acknowledged it would be rude to refer to an individual as a "redskin"... but to use the term on a group... eminently reasonable to call them redskins!

so another hypothetical to bridge the gap of apparent discrepancy from individual to group...

you need to get to a meeting of a native american indian organization (perhaps you are a journalist covering the NFL team name debate and looking for interviews on their views)... it is at a convention center, where there are simultaneous meetings for african american (NAACP) and asian organizations...

you arrive in the lobby looking for directions, where you coincidentally see three people standing together, representing each group...

you address all of them, like it was the most natural thing in the world...

i'm not looking for the blackskins or the yellowskins, but the redskins organization meeting... can you point me in the right direction?

SSUUURRRREEEEE you would.

i could see you excusing yourself from this hypothetical scenario (though you did already state such usage would be perfectly reasonable, even after a chance to clarify your position - somewhat like al campanis being interviewed by ted koppel) on the grounds that those terms aren't in the common parlance...

but that doesn't have to be the only reason a normal person wouldn't utter such archaic descriptive terms... perhaps it would be uncomfortable realizing you could be using a term they might find objectionable and offensive? why would you do that if you don't have to?

this leads to imo part of the fallacy of how the debate has been framed...

instead of asking how many people it is permissable to offend with what they call a slur (snyder's attitude and stance, reading between the lines, especially his earlier, less sophisticated one - we are NEVER changing it, in CAPS... the positive associations snyder, and many fans and backers, have with the name, its legacy and history, overrides the fact that a smaller, less vocal group may find it offensive and a slur... their concerns are to be dismissed as trivial and unimportant)... why is it necessary to offend anybody?

what if the name was changed to the washington indians (or american indians, or native americans)... that would seem to remove the slur controversy element... and since snyder and his supporters have claimed all along that redskins "really" means that and is intended synonymously and interchangeably with those terms anyways, what harm could their possibly be in making the switch?

would such a subtle name morphing or repurposing kill off any and all associations the franchise had with the past?

maybe thinking this is reasonable is an example of ignorance, manufactured outrage and being a busy body...

or maybe thinking such a compromise is unreasonable is an example of stubborn cussedness and obstinancy.

to the thread at large, some have focused on intent as important... i don't doubt that snyder has positive connotations with the word... but it is possible to use slurs unconsciously... maybe there are gradations of wrongness, but they can still both be wrong... one person could say knowingly and hurtfully to an african american, aware of perpetuating an offensive stereotype, that they must be good dancers... one could also say this out of ignorance, thinking it is a compliment... the lack of malicious intent in the latter case doesn't make it not a slur.

other people have argued on basis of numbers and the majority... if the majority thinks something, does that necessarily make it right... for instance, what percent of the (purported) native american indians in commonly cited poll knew that the original owner of the redskins was a notorious racist? maybe 10%, maybe less? for that matter, how many on this board knew it? 10% or less?

if we were to conduct a new poll today, and preface the poll with a quick education and history lesson on the origin of the redskins team name, as well as ownership, like so...

though the current owner insists that the origin of the name had to do with an honoring of native american heroism and positive traits and attributes... it may have actually referred to a coach (and the owner allegedly had him dress up in war paint and feathers before games)... who was thought to be an american indian... but maybe wasn't... who may have been arrested for impersonating an native american, in order to dodge the draft... oh, and by the way, the original owner was a notorious racist, who was the last to integrate, and that only because he was forced to by the US government on penalty of withdrawing his stadium lease if he didn't (reportedly once said... "he would hire negroes when the harlem globetrotters started hiring whites.")... his initial african american draftee, ernie davis, wouldn't even play for him because he was such a notorious racist... he left $6 million for a charitable organization bearing his name... with the stipulation that it could never be used "for any purpose which supports or employs the principal of racial integration."

NOW, that you know the oranizational background and original ownership history of this humanitarian, and his legacy of racism... are you still OK with him coopting a name that could be construed as racist...

and maybe ask a second question... in an earlier poll, about 10% of the population polled, fellow native american indians, claimed to be offended... it may have been higher, but there could have been polling flaws... if you know it offended 10% of your population, would you be more likely to reconsider your vote?

and a third... if in changing the name redskins you could still retain a team name like indians (or variants), which could still honor the native american legacy and heritage (which snyder claims is his intention), and in a less controversial manner, would you be more willing to get on board with changing the name...

if the poll was conducted like this, it is very possible the numbers would be (significantly) higher than 10% in favor of a name change... but i doubt if snyder would ever want to conduct that kind of poll.

The numbers could be higher, but they could be lower. And honestly if its under 10 percent, well realistically if you poll people about ANYTHING, atleast 10 percent would probably be offended at anything. There are always people offended by anything just for the sake of feeling they have a say.

As long as you're relying on such standards as "probably" and "could" and "might" in your assumptions of how things came into being and how people may or may not feel about things, I don't see how you can possibly lose this argument!

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

#2. Keep the personal attacks way down. I understand it's football and you're passionate. I am too. But I'm seeing the tool factor going way up in some of these posts and we can't have it. Disagree, argue, debate, support, critique whatever. But if you can't keep from calling the other guy a dumb###, you won't be posting here. This is the time of year when I have 10,000 urgent things to do every day. So please don't push this.

Bottom line -

1. Keep this focused on NFL News and Player Discussion and General Strategy topics.

2. Understand most people in the Shark Pool don't care about your team and keep the focus on stuff that is applicable to all.

3. Be Excellent to One Another.

http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=177520

 

[Ministry of Pain]

And tonight he insulted every NFL fan that ever attends a football game when he said "Most will be watching from the comfy warm couches in their homes like any sane person would."

I get it Bob, it's cold, do us all a favor and QUIT!!! Go back to baseball or wherever. I loved you back in the 80s on NBC. have enjoyed your coverage of MLB in the 90s, enjoyed your late show but lately you have worn out your welcome. You are not the young up and coming announcer like you were 30 years ago. You're a 61 year old man who is bitter about a lot of things, I can relate to that somewhat but I'm sick of your little comments Bob.

 

[drummer]

And tonight he insulted every NFL fan that ever attends a football game when he said "Most will be watching from the comfy warm couches in their homes like any sane person would."

I get it Bob, it's cold, do us all a favor and QUIT!!! Go back to baseball or wherever. I loved you back in the 80s on NBC. have enjoyed your coverage of MLB in the 90s, enjoyed your late show but lately you have worn out your welcome. You are not the young up and coming announcer like you were 30 years ago. You're a 61 year old man who is bitter about a lot of things, I can relate to that somewhat but I'm sick of your little comments Bob.

Lemme guess. He grabbed the last bag of Swedish Fish on the shelf.

 

[Ministry of Pain]

And tonight he insulted every NFL fan that ever attends a football game when he said "Most will be watching from the comfy warm couches in their homes like any sane person would."

I get it Bob, it's cold, do us all a favor and QUIT!!! Go back to baseball or wherever. I loved you back in the 80s on NBC. have enjoyed your coverage of MLB in the 90s, enjoyed your late show but lately you have worn out your welcome. You are not the young up and coming announcer like you were 30 years ago. You're a 61 year old man who is bitter about a lot of things, I can relate to that somewhat but I'm sick of your little comments Bob.

Lemme guess. He grabbed the last bag of Swedish Fish on the shelf.

Oh you know he would. He is so jealous of Dan Patrick who is the star of the pre game show. Tony Dungy certainly isn't going to overshadow anyone.

 

[drummer]

And tonight he insulted every NFL fan that ever attends a football game when he said "Most will be watching from the comfy warm couches in their homes like any sane person would."

I get it Bob, it's cold, do us all a favor and QUIT!!! Go back to baseball or wherever. I loved you back in the 80s on NBC. have enjoyed your coverage of MLB in the 90s, enjoyed your late show but lately you have worn out your welcome. You are not the young up and coming announcer like you were 30 years ago. You're a 61 year old man who is bitter about a lot of things, I can relate to that somewhat but I'm sick of your little comments Bob.

Lemme guess. He grabbed the last bag of Swedish Fish on the shelf.

Oh you know he would. He is so jealous of Dan Patrick who is the star of the pre game show. Tony Dungy certainly isn't going to overshadow anyone.

I'd be bitter too if Patrick was the star of any broadcast.

 

[Ministry of Pain]

And tonight he insulted every NFL fan that ever attends a football game when he said "Most will be watching from the comfy warm couches in their homes like any sane person would."

I get it Bob, it's cold, do us all a favor and QUIT!!! Go back to baseball or wherever. I loved you back in the 80s on NBC. have enjoyed your coverage of MLB in the 90s, enjoyed your late show but lately you have worn out your welcome. You are not the young up and coming announcer like you were 30 years ago. You're a 61 year old man who is bitter about a lot of things, I can relate to that somewhat but I'm sick of your little comments Bob.

Lemme guess. He grabbed the last bag of Swedish Fish on the shelf.

Oh you know he would. He is so jealous of Dan Patrick who is the star of the pre game show. Tony Dungy certainly isn't going to overshadow anyone.

I'd be bitter too if Patrick was the star of any broadcast.

He's so money on highlights, I wish they would give him a full 4-5 minutes for each game. His line today when Charles got the ball that tackling was optional he really nails it at times. He went on to say even if it was 2 hand touch Charles would have scored he's right.

 

[Gottabesweet]

MOP, I noticed that too. I'll be in the cold at the Bills game next week much to Costas pleasure

 

[Ministry of Pain]

MOP, I noticed that too. I'll be in the cold at the Bills game next week much to Costas pleasure

What a slap in the face to the fans at Paul Brown Stadium tonight. Or anyone that went out in the cold/bad weather. The fans in Chicago 2 weeks ago, Philly last week, total slap in the face. He has the attitude of Phil Connor in Groundhog's Day, just thinks he is above everyone, it's really gotten old.

 

[belljr]

MOP, I noticed that too. I'll be in the cold at the Bills game next week much to Costas pleasure

What a slap in the face to the fans at Paul Brown Stadium tonight. Or anyone that went out in the cold/bad weather. The fans in Chicago 2 weeks ago, Philly last week, total slap in the face. He has the attitude of Phil Connor in Groundhog's Day, just thinks he is above everyone, it's really gotten old.

why are fans going to paul brown?

 

[Gottabesweet]

MOP, I noticed that too. I'll be in the cold at the Bills game next week much to Costas pleasure

What a slap in the face to the fans at Paul Brown Stadium tonight. Or anyone that went out in the cold/bad weather. The fans in Chicago 2 weeks ago, Philly last week, total slap in the face. He has the attitude of Phil Connor in Groundhog's Day, just thinks he is above everyone, it's really gotten old.

The NFL needs to keep fans in the stands but all the money is elsewhere. I do enjoy Redzone on my off weeks but Costas should not be promoting staying home. I hope the NFL talks to him, not that it will do anything

 

[spider321]

What idiotic statements will Costas make this week?

 

[Dr Oadi]

What idiotic statements will Costas make this week?

Ban shotguns..... No wait that's smart.

 

[Ministry of Pain]

What idiotic statements will Costas make this week?

He just seems out of place, he is always AT the game which I don't understand, he's not part of the booth or anything on the sidelines, no wonder he chimed in about the Redskins, he has too much time on his hands and he's bored, he's above the position NBC has him in. He adds nothing to the viewing experience of the game, not anymore anyways. I used to like him a lot.

 

[drummer]

Forget Costas. GET RID OF COACH T!!