Do you think Snyder should change the name of the Redskins? (2 Viewers)

[TheIronSheik]

Well the most offensive part isn't the people in the headdresses. It's the guy wearing a leather g-string and a huge headdress shaking maracas and dancing with a horse.

Still- do you really not understand why it's kind of offensive to dress up people in exaggerated caricatures of cultures and ethnicities? If they were the Washington Hooknoses, and they wore huge novelty black hats with fake curly sideburns and there was a song about how the defense was gonna be really stingy, you'd be confused as to why Jews and those sympathetic to their plight might think that was offensive?

Your argument is ridiculous. And I've stated why before so I won't go into again. But dressing up like someone is not offensive. If they were the Knights and fans dressed up in chainmail and metal helmets, that wouldn't be offensive to the English. Dressing up in what Indians used to wear is not offensive. PERIOD. That argument is asinine.

Not asinine to some Native Americans such as this writer for the Native Appropriations website, talking about wearing an Indian headdress:

http://nativeappropriations.com/2010/04/but-why-cant-i-wear-a-hipster-headdress.html

But Why Can’t I Wear a Hipster Headdress?

I’ve posted a lot about the phenomenon that is the hipster headdress (see here, here, and here), but I’ve never really broken it down as to why this trend is so annoying and effed up. A lot of this will be review and is repeated elsewhere on the site, but I thought it was high time I pulled things together into a one-stop-anti-headdress shop. Much of this can also apply to any of the “tribal trends” I feature here, and you can also consider this a follow up to my “Cultural Appropriation Bingo” post. The many sources I drew from are included at the end of this post.


So why can’t I wear it?

• Headdresses promote stereotyping of Native cultures.
• The image of a warbonnet and warpaint wearing Indian is one that has been created and perpetuated by Hollywood and only bears minimal resemblance to traditional regalia of Plains tribes. It furthers the stereotype that Native peoples are one monolithic culture, when in fact there are 500+ distinct tribes with their own cultures. It also places Native people in the historic past, as something that cannot exist in modern society. We don’t walk around in ceremonial attire everyday, but we still exist and are still Native.
• Headdresses, feathers, and warbonnets have deep spiritual significance.
• The wearing of feathers and warbonnets in Native communities is not a fashion choice. Eagle feathers are presented as symbols of honor and respect and have to be earned. Some communities give them to children when they become adults through special ceremonies, others present the feathers as a way of commemorating an act or event of deep significance. Warbonnets especially are reserved for respected figures of power. The other issue is that warbonnets are reserved for men in Native communities, and nearly all of these pictures show women sporting the headdresses. I can’t read it as an act of feminism or subverting the patriarchal society, it’s an act of utter disrespect for the origins of the practice. (see my post on sweatlodges for more on the misinterpretation of the role of women). This is just as bad as running around in a pope hat and a bikini, or a Sikh turban cause it’s “cute”.
  
• It’s just like wearing blackface.
• “Playing Indian” has a long history in the United States, all the way back to those original tea partiers in Boston, and in no way is it better than minstral shows or dressing up in blackface. You are pretending to be a race that you are not, and are drawing upon stereotypes to do so. Like my first point said, you’re collapsing distinct cultures, and in doing so, you’re asserting your power over them. Which leads me to the next issue.
  

• There is a history of genocide and colonialism involved that continues today.
• By the sheer fact that you live in the United States you are benefiting from the history of genocide and continued colonialism of Native peoples. That land you’re standing on? Indian land. Taken illegally so your ancestor who came to the US could buy it and live off it, gaining valuable capital (both monetary and cultural) that passed down through the generations to you. Have I benefited as well, given I was raised in a white, suburban community? yes. absolutely. but by dismissing and minimizing the continued subordination and oppression of Natives in the US by donning your headdress, you are contributing to the culture of power that continues the cycle today.
  

Just because someone is offended, doesn't make it right. Showing me an article about someone being offended is not a defense. There are thousands of people all over the world offended by things that aren't offensive.

It is too when it directly refutes what you said:

Dressing up in what Indians used to wear is not offensive. PERIOD. That argument is asinine.

OK.

Well here's a snippet of an article my friend wrote:

It's not offensive.

Guess that unproves your point.

 

[Idiot Boxer]

http://deadspin.com/this-dated-video-helped-make-the-case-against-the-redsk-1592685513?utm_campaign=socialflow_deadspin_twitter&utm_source=deadspin_twitter&utm_medium=socialflow

I don't understand why that's offensive? So we can't dress as Indians anymore? And we can't say things about Indians?

"You can see how grossly offensive it is because people were dressed in headdresses." What?

Well the most offensive part isn't the people in the headdresses. It's the guy wearing a leather g-string and a huge headdress shaking maracas and dancing with a horse.

Still- do you really not understand why it's kind of offensive to dress up people in exaggerated caricatures of cultures and ethnicities? If they were the Washington Hooknoses, and they wore huge novelty black hats with fake curly sideburns and there was a song about how the defense was gonna be really stingy, you'd be confused as to why Jews and those sympathetic to their plight might think that was offensive?

That's basically the Notre Dame mascot.

The Notre Dame mascot is a leprechaun. A fictional creature no different than a Giant.

A better comparison for your use would be the Mountaineer.

He's a fighting Irishman; fighting because he's a drunk.

No.

 

[Rove!]

But when you turn it around and make that pejorative an acceptable part of the fabric of society, then it is harmful in that how can you feel fully accepted by a society that also makes this pejorative perfectly acceptable?

Your point is taken. I guess I was thinking that once a minority group is afforded codified legal protections, and once economic and educational barriers are at least legally removed, then overt societal acceptance -- "Sure ... disrespect me all you want. Hate me, even. I have the RIGHT to love/work/be here and I plan to exercise it!"

But then, living life as a perpetual object lesson for bigots must get old quick. So ... if society doesn't care to enforce societal sanctions against offense, then the legal protections don't mean as much, correct?

yep

 

[CBusAlex]

Just because someone is offended, doesn't make it right. Showing me an article about someone being offended is not a defense. There are thousands of people all over the world offended by things that aren't offensive.

Like the Hooknose thing, right? No reason anyone should be offended by that.

 

[Doug B]

Just because someone is offended, doesn't make it right. Showing me an article about someone being offended is not a defense. There are thousands of people all over the world offended by things that aren't offensive.

That's kind of what I was getting at in my first post on the previous page: why might society, in total, hold that offense should be actionable? If there was once a "tough schmidt" societal attitude about offensive material, what may have prompted that attitude to change (beccause it has, and there's no going back)?

Boiled down: Society at large didn't care about "Redskins" 30 years ago. Today, there's a critical societal mass building against the nickname -- what changed, and what does it mean that such a societal change took place? Is it simply society making progress?

 

[TheIronSheik]

Just because someone is offended, doesn't make it right. Showing me an article about someone being offended is not a defense. There are thousands of people all over the world offended by things that aren't offensive.

Like the Hooknose thing, right? No reason anyone should be offended by that.

As usual, I have no idea what you're talking about with your argument.

 

[Leroy Hoard]

http://deadspin.com/this-dated-video-helped-make-the-case-against-the-redsk-1592685513?utm_campaign=socialflow_deadspin_twitter&utm_source=deadspin_twitter&utm_medium=socialflow

I don't understand why that's offensive? So we can't dress as Indians anymore? And we can't say things about Indians?

"You can see how grossly offensive it is because people were dressed in headdresses." What?

Well the most offensive part isn't the people in the headdresses. It's the guy wearing a leather g-string and a huge headdress shaking maracas and dancing with a horse.

Still- do you really not understand why it's kind of offensive to dress up people in exaggerated caricatures of cultures and ethnicities? If they were the Washington Hooknoses, and they wore huge novelty black hats with fake curly sideburns and there was a song about how the defense was gonna be really stingy, you'd be confused as to why Jews and those sympathetic to their plight might think that was offensive?

That's basically the Notre Dame mascot.

The Notre Dame mascot is a leprechaun. A fictional creature no different than a Giant.

A better comparison for your use would be the Mountaineer.

He's a fighting Irishman; fighting because he's a drunk.

He could just be angry over a potato shortage.

 

[TobiasFunke]

Just because someone is offended, doesn't make it right. Showing me an article about someone being offended is not a defense. There are thousands of people all over the world offended by things that aren't offensive.

Like the Hooknose thing, right? No reason anyone should be offended by that.

As usual, I have no idea what you're talking about with your argument.

I'm not sure either, but I'm still waiting to hear how my hypo with the Washington Hooknoses differs from the Washington Redskins. I know you think it does, but I haven't seen anything about it. Even a link to a previous post, if you discussed it before.

Or would you be cool with a team using the name and mascot and fight song/signage that I described? Maybe you would be, that's fine, we'd just have to agree to disagree.

 

[squistion]

Well the most offensive part isn't the people in the headdresses. It's the guy wearing a leather g-string and a huge headdress shaking maracas and dancing with a horse.

Still- do you really not understand why it's kind of offensive to dress up people in exaggerated caricatures of cultures and ethnicities? If they were the Washington Hooknoses, and they wore huge novelty black hats with fake curly sideburns and there was a song about how the defense was gonna be really stingy, you'd be confused as to why Jews and those sympathetic to their plight might think that was offensive?

Your argument is ridiculous. And I've stated why before so I won't go into again. But dressing up like someone is not offensive. If they were the Knights and fans dressed up in chainmail and metal helmets, that wouldn't be offensive to the English. Dressing up in what Indians used to wear is not offensive. PERIOD. That argument is asinine.

Not asinine to some Native Americans such as this writer for the Native Appropriations website, talking about wearing an Indian headdress:

http://nativeappropriations.com/2010/04/but-why-cant-i-wear-a-hipster-headdress.html

But Why Can’t I Wear a Hipster Headdress?

I’ve posted a lot about the phenomenon that is the hipster headdress (see here, here, and here), but I’ve never really broken it down as to why this trend is so annoying and effed up. A lot of this will be review and is repeated elsewhere on the site, but I thought it was high time I pulled things together into a one-stop-anti-headdress shop. Much of this can also apply to any of the “tribal trends” I feature here, and you can also consider this a follow up to my “Cultural Appropriation Bingo” post. The many sources I drew from are included at the end of this post.


So why can’t I wear it?

• Headdresses promote stereotyping of Native cultures.
• The image of a warbonnet and warpaint wearing Indian is one that has been created and perpetuated by Hollywood and only bears minimal resemblance to traditional regalia of Plains tribes. It furthers the stereotype that Native peoples are one monolithic culture, when in fact there are 500+ distinct tribes with their own cultures. It also places Native people in the historic past, as something that cannot exist in modern society. We don’t walk around in ceremonial attire everyday, but we still exist and are still Native.
• Headdresses, feathers, and warbonnets have deep spiritual significance.
• The wearing of feathers and warbonnets in Native communities is not a fashion choice. Eagle feathers are presented as symbols of honor and respect and have to be earned. Some communities give them to children when they become adults through special ceremonies, others present the feathers as a way of commemorating an act or event of deep significance. Warbonnets especially are reserved for respected figures of power. The other issue is that warbonnets are reserved for men in Native communities, and nearly all of these pictures show women sporting the headdresses. I can’t read it as an act of feminism or subverting the patriarchal society, it’s an act of utter disrespect for the origins of the practice. (see my post on sweatlodges for more on the misinterpretation of the role of women). This is just as bad as running around in a pope hat and a bikini, or a Sikh turban cause it’s “cute”.
  
• It’s just like wearing blackface.
• “Playing Indian” has a long history in the United States, all the way back to those original tea partiers in Boston, and in no way is it better than minstral shows or dressing up in blackface. You are pretending to be a race that you are not, and are drawing upon stereotypes to do so. Like my first point said, you’re collapsing distinct cultures, and in doing so, you’re asserting your power over them. Which leads me to the next issue.
  

• There is a history of genocide and colonialism involved that continues today.
• By the sheer fact that you live in the United States you are benefiting from the history of genocide and continued colonialism of Native peoples. That land you’re standing on? Indian land. Taken illegally so your ancestor who came to the US could buy it and live off it, gaining valuable capital (both monetary and cultural) that passed down through the generations to you. Have I benefited as well, given I was raised in a white, suburban community? yes. absolutely. but by dismissing and minimizing the continued subordination and oppression of Natives in the US by donning your headdress, you are contributing to the culture of power that continues the cycle today.
  

Just because someone is offended, doesn't make it right. Showing me an article about someone being offended is not a defense. There are thousands of people all over the world offended by things that aren't offensive.

It is too when it directly refutes what you said:

Dressing up in what Indians used to wear is not offensive. PERIOD. That argument is asinine.

OK.

Well here's a snippet of an article my friend wrote:

It's not offensive.

Guess that unproves your point.

Your friend is a Native American and writes for a Native American website? By the way if there was any point to it, I could find another half dozen articles and quotes by Native Americans saying the same thing, but you obviously can't accept anything that contradicts your opinion, so I am not going to waste any more of my time.

And what you really meant is that because you don't find it offensive, then no one else should either.

 

[TheIronSheik]

Just because someone is offended, doesn't make it right. Showing me an article about someone being offended is not a defense. There are thousands of people all over the world offended by things that aren't offensive.

Like the Hooknose thing, right? No reason anyone should be offended by that.

As usual, I have no idea what you're talking about with your argument.

I'm not sure either, but I'm still waiting to hear how my hypo with the Washington Hooknoses differs from the Washington Redskins. I know you think it does, but I haven't seen anything about it. Even a link to a previous post, if you discussed it before.

Or would you be cool with a team using the name and mascot and fight song/signage that I described? Maybe you would be, that's fine, we'd just have to agree to disagree.

You are a smart guy. I know you don't actually think Hooknoses and Redskins is the same thing. No one, NOT A SINGLE PERSON EVER, has ever said the term Hooknose and NOT meant it to be derogatory. There's no argument on that. To put on a headdress and paint your face, maybe bang on a drum... there is zero offense meant in that. I don't understand how you can honestly compare the two.

 

[TheIronSheik]

Your friend is a Native American and writes for a Native American website? By the way if there was any point to it, I could find another half dozen articles and quotes by Native Americans saying the same thing, but you obviously can't accept anything that contradicts your opinion, so I am not going to waste any more of my time.

And what you really meant is that because you don't find it offensive, then no one else should either.

Really? You can find 6 articles? Well then. I guess it IS offensive.

 

[squistion]

http://blogs.seattletimes.com/take2/2014/06/18/why-were-banning-the-redskins-nickname-in-the-seattle-times/#.U6NKhSp_wxo.twitter

Why we’re banning Redskins in The Seattle Times

The most controversial name in sports won’t appear again in The Seattle Times’ print edition or on the seattletimes.com home pages as long as I am sports editor.

It’s time to ban the use of “Redskins,” the absurd, offensive and outdated name of the NFL team in Washington, D.C.

Past time, actually.

We’ll probably receive scathing emails, letters, phone calls and reader comments telling me we’re too PC, that the name actually honors Native Americans or that we have no right to change a team’s official name.

Everyone’s entitled to an opinion – even if I don’t buy it.

We’re banning the name for one reason: It’s offensive. Far from honoring Native Americans, the term colors an entire race. Many Native Americans consider it an outdated label placed on their people.

Randy Lewis, a member of the Colville Confederated Tribes who is a board member for United Indians, didn’t pull any punches when asked what he thought.

“I find it as offensive as black people find the N-word,” he said. “They say they’re trying to dignify or honor something with it. It doesn’t dignify us. It doesn’t honor us. It doesn’t make us feel good about ourselves.”

Lewis, who is in his 60s, acknowledges that some Native Americans, particularly from his generation, accept and even embrace the name.

“But our younger people find it offensive, and they’re the ones who are inheriting this world,” he said. “If they find it offensive, damn right, take it out.”

So we are going to do just that.

 

[TobiasFunke]

Just because someone is offended, doesn't make it right. Showing me an article about someone being offended is not a defense. There are thousands of people all over the world offended by things that aren't offensive.

Like the Hooknose thing, right? No reason anyone should be offended by that.

As usual, I have no idea what you're talking about with your argument.

I'm not sure either, but I'm still waiting to hear how my hypo with the Washington Hooknoses differs from the Washington Redskins. I know you think it does, but I haven't seen anything about it. Even a link to a previous post, if you discussed it before.

Or would you be cool with a team using the name and mascot and fight song/signage that I described? Maybe you would be, that's fine, we'd just have to agree to disagree.

You are a smart guy. I know you don't actually think Hooknoses and Redskins is the same thing. No one, NOT A SINGLE PERSON EVER, has ever said the term Hooknose and NOT meant it to be derogatory. There's no argument on that. To put on a headdress and paint your face, maybe bang on a drum... there is zero offense meant in that. I don't understand how you can honestly compare the two.

I use it all the time without meaning it to be derogatory

Anyway, regardless of intent, the effect is offense among a significant percentage of the Native American population. That fact that it came from a position of ignorance excuses the past behavior to some degree in my opinion, I'm with you there.

But that's no longer an excuse. Every single Redskins employee and fan now knows that using the name and doing dances in headdresses is offensive to a whole lot of Native Americans. That's been made clear to them many times over by everyone: the tribes themselves, their national organizations, the media, politicians, and now the Patent and Trademark Office. If they do it now their actions are every bit as intentional, and thus what they are doing is every bit as bad as my Hooknoses hypo. If it wasn't before, it is now.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

http://deadspin.com/this-dated-video-helped-make-the-case-against-the-redsk-1592685513?utm_campaign=socialflow_deadspin_twitter&utm_source=deadspin_twitter&utm_medium=socialflow

I don't understand why that's offensive? So we can't dress as Indians anymore? And we can't say things about Indians?

"You can see how grossly offensive it is because people were dressed in headdresses." What?

Indian head nickle.

Point of national pride, a part of our heritage.

http://www.armstrongengraving.com/pix/nickels/indian-head-reverse-running-late-hobo-nickel.jpg

Note the date of the nickle, it's right around the date of the creation of the Redskins name, maybe not unlike the Eagles' referencing the NRA eagle icon.

It's a thin line, sometimes these arguments against "Redskin", and especially the iconography (as opposed to Chief Nockahoma and that kind of thing), prove too much maybe.

 

[squistion]

I knew it was just of time until those on the right blamed Obama for the trademark decision:

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/conservatives-washington-redskins-trademark-Obama

Conservatives: Redskins Ruling Another Day In 'Obama's America'

The White House said the decision to cancel the Washington Redskins' trademark registrations was made by an independent tribunal, but that hasn't stopped many on the right to link the ruling to the tyrannical arm of Barack Obama they've warned about for years.



A mere hour after the United States Patent and Trademark Office announced the cancellation of six of the team's trademark registrations because "they were disparaging to Native Americans at the respective times they were registered," RedState.com editor Erick Erickson already knew who was really behind the decision.



Erickson pinned the blame on "a bunch of overeducated white guys who cry during 'Love Actually'" and "a class of men who pee sitting down" — two effete, easily aggrieved constituencies who apparently have some clout with Obama in charge.



"The lesson here is that guilty feeling white liberals are a threat to freedom and, in Barack Obama’s America, the key to survive is to not appear on the radar of in Washington, D.C," Erickson wrote. "Once Washington’s elite know of your existence and you do not behave like them, they will turn the power of government in your direction."



Conservative shock jock Rush Limbaugh also said that Obama's fingerprints are all over the decision. Limbaugh faulted political reporters for failing to acknowledge the President's complicity in the "tyranny."



"This is not the Patent and Trademark Office. This is Barack Obama," Limbaugh said Wednesday. "One of the things in reporting out of Washington that has happened during this administration — this is the Executive Branch. All this stuff is coming out of the Executive Branch. All of this, well, tyranny, it's all coming from the Executive Branch. And Obama owns the Executive Branch. He is the Executive Branch. But yet, it's never reported that way."



"Barack Obama's administration did this!" he added.

 

[Chaka]

They didn't name the Redskins the name they did because they were racist and hated Indians. This was your defense earlier and it's utterly laughable. For most people, they do not associate this name in a bad context. It has always been a pride thing. The fact that some people are offended by it does not mean that everyone else meant disrespect.

That doesn't matter. The people it was meant to honor are offended by it and have been complaining about it for 40 years. It is not up to you to decide what is or is not offensive to others.

Native Americans find it offensive, not all of them perhaps but it sure seems like a lot of them do so it doesn't matter what Daniel Snyder or anyone else thinks.

Changing the name is not that big of a deal, accept it and move on.

 

[Doug B]

Indian head nickle.

Point of national pride, a part of our heritage.

http://www.armstrongengraving.com/pix/nickels/indian-head-reverse-running-late-hobo-nickel.jpg

My understanding here is that the Redskins' helmet logo is not considered offensive by hardly anyone -- so if a nickname change to, say, the Potomacs, Scouts, or Americans came with no change to the helmet, it would be perfectly acceptable.

 

[JZilla]

Snyder could still suck it up and make things right. But we can all count on him not doing that!

 

[Henry Ford]

http://deadspin.com/this-dated-video-helped-make-the-case-against-the-redsk-1592685513?utm_campaign=socialflow_deadspin_twitter&utm_source=deadspin_twitter&utm_medium=socialflow

I don't understand why that's offensive? So we can't dress as Indians anymore? And we can't say things about Indians? "You can see how grossly offensive it is because people were dressed in headdresses." What?

Well the most offensive part isn't the people in the headdresses. It's the guy wearing a leather g-string and a huge headdress shaking maracas and dancing with a horse.

Still- do you really not understand why it's kind of offensive to dress up people in exaggerated caricatures of cultures and ethnicities? If they were the Washington Hooknoses, and they wore huge novelty black hats with fake curly sideburns and there was a song about how the defense was gonna be really stingy, you'd be confused as to why Jews and those sympathetic to their plight might think that was offensive?

Your argument is ridiculous. And I've stated why before so I won't go into again. But dressing up like someone is not offensive. If they were the Knights and fans dressed up in chainmail and metal helmets, that wouldn't be offensive to the English. Dressing up in what Indians used to wear is not offensive. PERIOD. That argument is asinine.

Prepare yourself for another condescending response.

I hear ya. I try to stay out of this thread because of it. I have two people in here who tell me how much they like me, then follow it up by saying I'm an idiot.

I don't think you're an idiot, I think your opinion on this issue is messed up. If you're talking about me.

 

[Henry Ford]

http://deadspin.com/this-dated-video-helped-make-the-case-against-the-redsk-1592685513?utm_campaign=socialflow_deadspin_twitter&utm_source=deadspin_twitter&utm_medium=socialflow

I don't understand why that's offensive? So we can't dress as Indians anymore? And we can't say things about Indians?

"You can see how grossly offensive it is because people were dressed in headdresses." What?

Well the most offensive part isn't the people in the headdresses. It's the guy wearing a leather g-string and a huge headdress shaking maracas and dancing with a horse.

Still- do you really not understand why it's kind of offensive to dress up people in exaggerated caricatures of cultures and ethnicities? If they were the Washington Hooknoses, and they wore huge novelty black hats with fake curly sideburns and there was a song about how the defense was gonna be really stingy, you'd be confused as to why Jews and those sympathetic to their plight might think that was offensive?

Your argument is ridiculous. And I've stated why before so I won't go into again. But dressing up like someone is not offensive. If they were the Knights and fans dressed up in chainmail and metal helmets, that wouldn't be offensive to the English. Dressing up in what Indians used to wear is not offensive. PERIOD. That argument is asinine.

Could you at least link to why the argument is ridiculous, if you won't go into it again? Seems like a perfectly reasonable hypothetical to me. Would the Washington Hooknoses, with fans dressed in huge novelty black hats and fake curly sideburns singing songs and making signs using wordplay related to the stinginess of their defense be OK with you or not? If not, why not? How is that different from the Washington Redskins?

First off, let me point out how incredibly racist these posts are. I like how people hide behind the idea of presenting an argument to unleash they're untapped racism and prejudice.

Plain and simple: "Hooknoses" has never, EVER been a term that was meant as a proud name. They didn't name the Redskins the name they did because they were racist and hated Indians. This was your defense earlier and it's utterly laughable. For most people, they do not associate this name in a bad context. It has always been a pride thing. The fact that some people are offended by it does not mean that everyone else meant disrespect. If you can show me a link to the article that shows when Hooknoses was ever used as a prideful name, I'd like to see it.

Yeah, I think it's significantly more like calling them the "Washington Negroes" than "Hooknoses."

 

[dgreen]

at http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/dc-sports-bog/wp/2014/06/19/msnbc-host-joy-reid-warns-viewers-before-a-clip-involving-redskins/

 

[Fennis]

at http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/dc-sports-bog/wp/2014/06/19/msnbc-host-joy-reid-warns-viewers-before-a-clip-involving-redskins/

that's stupid

 

[Sinn Fein]

In for a dime, in for a dollar. If you are going to say its offensive, you can't keep using it even in conversation about the name.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

http://deadspin.com/this-dated-video-helped-make-the-case-against-the-redsk-1592685513?utm_campaign=socialflow_deadspin_twitter&utm_source=deadspin_twitter&utm_medium=socialflow

I don't understand why that's offensive? So we can't dress as Indians anymore? And we can't say things about Indians?

"You can see how grossly offensive it is because people were dressed in headdresses." What?

Well the most offensive part isn't the people in the headdresses. It's the guy wearing a leather g-string and a huge headdress shaking maracas and dancing with a horse.

Still- do you really not understand why it's kind of offensive to dress up people in exaggerated caricatures of cultures and ethnicities? If they were the Washington Hooknoses, and they wore huge novelty black hats with fake curly sideburns and there was a song about how the defense was gonna be really stingy, you'd be confused as to why Jews and those sympathetic to their plight might think that was offensive?

Your argument is ridiculous. And I've stated why before so I won't go into again. But dressing up like someone is not offensive. If they were the Knights and fans dressed up in chainmail and metal helmets, that wouldn't be offensive to the English. Dressing up in what Indians used to wear is not offensive. PERIOD. That argument is asinine.

Could you at least link to why the argument is ridiculous, if you won't go into it again? Seems like a perfectly reasonable hypothetical to me. Would the Washington Hooknoses, with fans dressed in huge novelty black hats and fake curly sideburns singing songs and making signs using wordplay related to the stinginess of their defense be OK with you or not? If not, why not? How is that different from the Washington Redskins?

First off, let me point out how incredibly racist these posts are. I like how people hide behind the idea of presenting an argument to unleash they're untapped racism and prejudice.

Plain and simple: "Hooknoses" has never, EVER been a term that was meant as a proud name. They didn't name the Redskins the name they did because they were racist and hated Indians. This was your defense earlier and it's utterly laughable. For most people, they do not associate this name in a bad context. It has always been a pride thing. The fact that some people are offended by it does not mean that everyone else meant disrespect. If you can show me a link to the article that shows when Hooknoses was ever used as a prideful name, I'd like to see it.

Yeah, I think it's significantly more like calling them the "Washington Negroes" than "Hooknoses."

Because negro was once acceptable... but now it's not? Is that the idea?

United Negro College Fund aside, right?

 

[Henry Ford]

http://deadspin.com/this-dated-video-helped-make-the-case-against-the-redsk-1592685513?utm_campaign=socialflow_deadspin_twitter&utm_source=deadspin_twitter&utm_medium=socialflow

I don't understand why that's offensive? So we can't dress as Indians anymore? And we can't say things about Indians? "You can see how grossly offensive it is because people were dressed in headdresses." What?

Well the most offensive part isn't the people in the headdresses. It's the guy wearing a leather g-string and a huge headdress shaking maracas and dancing with a horse.

Still- do you really not understand why it's kind of offensive to dress up people in exaggerated caricatures of cultures and ethnicities? If they were the Washington Hooknoses, and they wore huge novelty black hats with fake curly sideburns and there was a song about how the defense was gonna be really stingy, you'd be confused as to why Jews and those sympathetic to their plight might think that was offensive?

Your argument is ridiculous. And I've stated why before so I won't go into again. But dressing up like someone is not offensive. If they were the Knights and fans dressed up in chainmail and metal helmets, that wouldn't be offensive to the English. Dressing up in what Indians used to wear is not offensive. PERIOD. That argument is asinine.

Could you at least link to why the argument is ridiculous, if you won't go into it again? Seems like a perfectly reasonable hypothetical to me. Would the Washington Hooknoses, with fans dressed in huge novelty black hats and fake curly sideburns singing songs and making signs using wordplay related to the stinginess of their defense be OK with you or not? If not, why not? How is that different from the Washington Redskins?

First off, let me point out how incredibly racist these posts are. I like how people hide behind the idea of presenting an argument to unleash they're untapped racism and prejudice.Plain and simple: "Hooknoses" has never, EVER been a term that was meant as a proud name. They didn't name the Redskins the name they did because they were racist and hated Indians. This was your defense earlier and it's utterly laughable. For most people, they do not associate this name in a bad context. It has always been a pride thing. The fact that some people are offended by it does not mean that everyone else meant disrespect. If you can show me a link to the article that shows when Hooknoses was ever used as a prideful name, I'd like to see it.

Yeah, I think it's significantly more like calling them the "Washington Negroes" than "Hooknoses."

Because negro was once acceptable... but now it's not? Is that the idea?

United Negro College Fund aside, right?

Again, if the UNCF started using a white guy in blackface in a butler's uniform as a mascot, I'd say they should also fit this mold.

 

[tonydead]

In for a dime, in for a dollar. If you are going to say its offensive, you can't keep using it even in conversation about the name.

Until everyone debating this issue on radio, tv or otherwise starts saying the "R-word" instead of "Redskins" it's pretty hypocritical.

Makes you wonder what the heck we are going to do when find another R or N word that is offensive that we need to abolish. How will we converse then?

 

[tonydead]

I chose Jewish stereotypes because I'm Jewish so I felt comfortable

And why is it ok for the people who find the word offensive to adopt it as their own? Seems logical that they'd be the last group to want use the word if they really find it offensive.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

http://deadspin.com/this-dated-video-helped-make-the-case-against-the-redsk-1592685513?utm_campaign=socialflow_deadspin_twitter&utm_source=deadspin_twitter&utm_medium=socialflow

I don't understand why that's offensive? So we can't dress as Indians anymore? And we can't say things about Indians? "You can see how grossly offensive it is because people were dressed in headdresses." What?

Well the most offensive part isn't the people in the headdresses. It's the guy wearing a leather g-string and a huge headdress shaking maracas and dancing with a horse.

Still- do you really not understand why it's kind of offensive to dress up people in exaggerated caricatures of cultures and ethnicities? If they were the Washington Hooknoses, and they wore huge novelty black hats with fake curly sideburns and there was a song about how the defense was gonna be really stingy, you'd be confused as to why Jews and those sympathetic to their plight might think that was offensive?

Your argument is ridiculous. And I've stated why before so I won't go into again. But dressing up like someone is not offensive. If they were the Knights and fans dressed up in chainmail and metal helmets, that wouldn't be offensive to the English. Dressing up in what Indians used to wear is not offensive. PERIOD. That argument is asinine.

Could you at least link to why the argument is ridiculous, if you won't go into it again? Seems like a perfectly reasonable hypothetical to me. Would the Washington Hooknoses, with fans dressed in huge novelty black hats and fake curly sideburns singing songs and making signs using wordplay related to the stinginess of their defense be OK with you or not? If not, why not? How is that different from the Washington Redskins?

First off, let me point out how incredibly racist these posts are. I like how people hide behind the idea of presenting an argument to unleash they're untapped racism and prejudice.Plain and simple: "Hooknoses" has never, EVER been a term that was meant as a proud name. They didn't name the Redskins the name they did because they were racist and hated Indians. This was your defense earlier and it's utterly laughable. For most people, they do not associate this name in a bad context. It has always been a pride thing. The fact that some people are offended by it does not mean that everyone else meant disrespect. If you can show me a link to the article that shows when Hooknoses was ever used as a prideful name, I'd like to see it.

Yeah, I think it's significantly more like calling them the "Washington Negroes" than "Hooknoses."

Because negro was once acceptable... but now it's not? Is that the idea?

United Negro College Fund aside, right?

Again, if the UNCF started using a white guy in blackface in a butler's uniform as a mascot, I'd say they should also fit this mold.

Well see above discussion re: the Indian Head nickel:

http://www.armstrongengraving.com/pix/nickels/indian-head-reverse-running-late-hobo-nickel.jpg

Offensive?

Or symbol of pride and American history? Look at the date on it, right around when the Redskins' name change took place.

Consider Doug's response:

My understanding here is that the Redskins' helmet logo is not considered offensive by hardly anyone -- so if a nickname change to, say, the Potomacs, Scouts, or Americans came with no change to the helmet, it would be perfectly acceptable.

Or alternatively, would "redskins" like the UNCF be ok with a more dignified logo?

You know, something more dignified than the classic nickel which people collect and treasure everywhere.

ETA - actually fyi I was trying to agree with you there and find the distinction from the prior epithet which was being bandied about.

 

[jonessed]

It's all fun and games until the attorneys go hyperbolic.

 

[Topes]

Probably Honda, but I found this piece to be very thought-provoking.

 

[tonydead]

Yeah, I think it's significantly more like calling them the "Washington Negroes" than "Hooknoses."

Don't you mean Washington Indios?

 

[Chaka]

In for a dime, in for a dollar. If you are going to say its offensive, you can't keep using it even in conversation about the name.

Until everyone debating this issue on radio, tv or otherwise starts saying the "R-word" instead of "Redskins" it's pretty hypocritical.

Makes you wonder what the heck we are going to do when find another R or N word that is offensive that we need to abolish. How will we converse then?

Pretty easily just like we do now.

And more and more people and news outlets have, in fact, stopped using that word. I doubt people stopped using the N-word overnight, and even there we don't have anywhere close to 100% of people not using it.

 

[Chaka]

I chose Jewish stereotypes because I'm Jewish so I felt comfortable

And why is it ok for the people who find the word offensive to adopt it as their own? Seems logical that they'd be the last group to want use the word if they really find it offensive.

Do you have a point or is this just another example of white people problems?

 

[Chaka]

Or alternatively, would "redskins" like the UNCF be ok with a more dignified logo?

Huh?

 

[avoiding injuries]

I wore a Redskins shirt to the gym and then to the grocery store after work today. I got 3 comments and a couple more looks. This is going to be entertaining...

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

In for a dime, in for a dollar. If you are going to say its offensive, you can't keep using it even in conversation about the name.

Until everyone debating this issue on radio, tv or otherwise starts saying the "R-word" instead of "Redskins" it's pretty hypocritical.

Makes you wonder what the heck we are going to do when find another R or N word that is offensive that we need to abolish. How will we converse then?

I have found Tobias pretty persuasive on this point actually.

But the word games and obsessiveness with skin color, race and language in this country is ridiculous.

Common political theme: "America is a melting pot where white, brown, black, yellow, red and peoples of all colors can come together as a nation..." - Ok.

"Colored people" - not ok

"People of color" - ok

NAACP - ok

Black - ok

"Negro" (Spanish for black) - not ok

UNCF - ok

Caucasian - ok, describes white people.... who almost entirely have absolutely no heritage in the Caucasus

white - ok

"whitie" - not ok

"cracker" - has anyone ever heard this term in person or been offended by the reading or hearing of it? I think I have only seen the term in Faulkner novels and in nutty conversations like this.

I found this (to me) interesting wiki article on the interplay between skin color and race:

One of the earlier uses of the concept of “black” as a metaphor for race was first used at the end of the 17th century when a French doctor named François Bernier (1625–1688), an early proponent of scientific racism, divided up humanity based on facial appearance and body type. He proposed four categories: Europeans, Far Easterners, Lapps, and Blacks.[2] The first major scientific model was created in the 18th century when Carolus Linnaeus recognized four main races: Europeanus which he labeled the white race, Asiaticus, which he labeled the yellow race, Americanus, which he labeled the red race, and Africanus, which he labeled the black race.[3] By adding the brown race, which he called "Malay" for Polynesians, Melanesians of Pacific Islands, and aborigines of Australia,[4] Linnaeus' protégé, anthropology founder Johann Friedrich Blumenbach (1752–1840), came up with the five color typology for humans: white people (the Caucasian or white race), more or less black people (the Ethiopian or black race), yellow people (the Mongolian or yellow race), cinnamon-brown or flame colored people (the American or red race) and brown people (the Malay or brown race). Blumenbach listed the "races" in a hierarchic order of physical similarities: Caucasian, followed by American, followed by Mongolian, followed by Malayan, followed by Africoid peoples. Rand McNally's 1944 map of races describes Amerindians as being the copper race or copper people.[5]

This is ridiculously, old , outdated stuff we're dealing with, people.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Or alternatively, would "redskins" like the UNCF be ok with a more dignified logo?

Huh?

Context, folks, context. Please see Henry's comment.

 

[Chaka]

Or alternatively, would "redskins" like the UNCF be ok with a more dignified logo?

Huh?

Context, folks, context. Please see Henry's comment.

I am more wondering about when the UNCF had an offensive logo that they felt compelled to change.

 

[tonydead]

In for a dime, in for a dollar. If you are going to say its offensive, you can't keep using it even in conversation about the name.

Until everyone debating this issue on radio, tv or otherwise starts saying the "R-word" instead of "Redskins" it's pretty hypocritical.

Makes you wonder what the heck we are going to do when find another R or N word that is offensive that we need to abolish. How will we converse then?

Pretty easily just like we do now.

And more and more people and news outlets have, in fact, stopped using that word. I doubt people stopped using the N-word overnight, and even there we don't have anywhere close to 100% of people not using it.

When your great great grand kid has to reference "R-word #23" in her history paper it's going to seem rather silly.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Or alternatively, would "redskins" like the UNCF be ok with a more dignified logo?

Huh?

Context, folks, context. Please see Henry's comment.

I am more wondering about when the UNCF had an offensive logo that they felt compelled to change.

I doubt they did.

I was just trying to follow the conversation Henry and Sheek were having.

I was trying to say that negro = redskin, because they were once acceptable, but now are not.

Henry seemed to indicate the redskin name was offensive because of the logo. I'm pointing out it looks a whole lot like the Indian Head nickel, which I think we can all agree is a clasic symbol of pride and liberty in our country, a positive connotation. Henry did not respond to that.

And it's not an assertion on my point, just a question.

http://thumbs.imagekind.com/127021_650/1936-Indian-Head-nickel.jpg?v=1181062080

In 1936 - the date on the nickel, which ws also around when the redskins name change took place - that was obviously something we were all very proud of as a nation. Still are I'd say, no?

However, I could see where negro and redskin could be equated without any reference to the logo.

 

[Sinn Fein]

In for a dime, in for a dollar. If you are going to say its offensive, you can't keep using it even in conversation about the name.

Until everyone debating this issue on radio, tv or otherwise starts saying the "R-word" instead of "Redskins" it's pretty hypocritical.

Makes you wonder what the heck we are going to do when find another R or N word that is offensive that we need to abolish. How will we converse then?

"Negro" (Spanish for black) - not ok

Its been a long time since I took spanish, but I don't think the spanish word fro black is pronounced the same as the word describing Black americans.

 

[tonydead]

I chose Jewish stereotypes because I'm Jewish so I felt comfortable

And why is it ok for the people who find the word offensive to adopt it as their own? Seems logical that they'd be the last group to want use the word if they really find it offensive.

Do you have a point or is this just another example of white people problems?

It's a question, that apparently, you don't have an answer for.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

In for a dime, in for a dollar. If you are going to say its offensive, you can't keep using it even in conversation about the name.

Until everyone debating this issue on radio, tv or otherwise starts saying the "R-word" instead of "Redskins" it's pretty hypocritical.

Makes you wonder what the heck we are going to do when find another R or N word that is offensive that we need to abolish. How will we converse then?

"Negro" (Spanish for black) - not ok

Its been a long time since I took spanish, but I don't think the spanish word fro black is pronounced the same as the word describing Black americans.

I don't want to belabor it. The word "negro" in and of itself is harmless, like "redskin" if it offends it offends regardless of how it is pronounced.

 

[Chaka]

Or alternatively, would "redskins" like the UNCF be ok with a more dignified logo?

Huh?

Context, folks, context. Please see Henry's comment.

I am more wondering about when the UNCF had an offensive logo that they felt compelled to change.

I doubt they did.

I was just trying to follow the conversation Henry and Sheek were having.

I was trying to say that negro = redskin, because they were once acceptable, but now are not.

Henry seemed to indicate the redskin name was offensive because of the logo. I'm pointing out it looks a whole lot like the Indian Head nickel, which I think we can all agree is a clasic symbol of pride and liberty in our country, a positive connotation. Henry did not respond to that.

And it's not an assertion on my point, just a question.

http://thumbs.imagekind.com/127021_650/1936-Indian-Head-nickel.jpg?v=1181062080

In 1936 - the date on the nickel, which ws also around when the redskins name change took place - that was obviously something we were all very proud of as a nation. Still are I'd say, no?

However, I could see where negro and redskin could be equated without any reference to the logo.

It's not offensive because of the logo. It's offensive in the same way the n-word is offensive because the people it is used to define find it horribly offensive.

Now Chief Wahoo OTOH...

 

[Fennis]

In for a dime, in for a dollar. If you are going to say its offensive, you can't keep using it even in conversation about the name.

Until everyone debating this issue on radio, tv or otherwise starts saying the "R-word" instead of "Redskins" it's pretty hypocritical.

Makes you wonder what the heck we are going to do when find another R or N word that is offensive that we need to abolish. How will we converse then?

Pretty easily just like we do now.

And more and more people and news outlets have, in fact, stopped using that word. I doubt people stopped using the N-word overnight, and even there we don't have anywhere close to 100% of people not using it.

When your great great grand kid has to reference "R-word #23" in her history paper it's going to seem rather silly.

you think people are using the word "redskin" in history papers?

 

[Chaka]

In for a dime, in for a dollar. If you are going to say its offensive, you can't keep using it even in conversation about the name.

Until everyone debating this issue on radio, tv or otherwise starts saying the "R-word" instead of "Redskins" it's pretty hypocritical.

Makes you wonder what the heck we are going to do when find another R or N word that is offensive that we need to abolish. How will we converse then?

Pretty easily just like we do now.

And more and more people and news outlets have, in fact, stopped using that word. I doubt people stopped using the N-word overnight, and even there we don't have anywhere close to 100% of people not using it.

When your great great grand kid has to reference "R-word #23" in her history paper it's going to seem rather silly.

They'll be fine.

 

[Joe Summer]

Its been a long time since I took spanish, but I don't think the spanish word fro black is pronounced the same as the word describing Black americans.

I see what you did there.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Or alternatively, would "redskins" like the UNCF be ok with a more dignified logo?

Huh?

Context, folks, context. Please see Henry's comment.

I am more wondering about when the UNCF had an offensive logo that they felt compelled to change.

I doubt they did.

I was just trying to follow the conversation Henry and Sheek were having.

I was trying to say that negro = redskin, because they were once acceptable, but now are not.

Henry seemed to indicate the redskin name was offensive because of the logo. I'm pointing out it looks a whole lot like the Indian Head nickel, which I think we can all agree is a clasic symbol of pride and liberty in our country, a positive connotation. Henry did not respond to that.

And it's not an assertion on my point, just a question.

http://thumbs.imagekind.com/127021_650/1936-Indian-Head-nickel.jpg?v=1181062080

In 1936 - the date on the nickel, which ws also around when the redskins name change took place - that was obviously something we were all very proud of as a nation. Still are I'd say, no?

However, I could see where negro and redskin could be equated without any reference to the logo.

It's not offensive because of the logo. It's offensive in the same way the n-word is offensive because the people it is used to define find it horribly offensive.

Now Chief Wahoo OTOH...

Right, and I mentioned Chief Nockahoma elsewhere too.

I was trying to agree with Henry and get past the logo thing at the same time.

ETA - obviously "colored" in NAACP and "negro" in UNCF are carried forward because they are considered distinguished through history somehow. I guess it's highly unlikely "redskin" could carry that kind of gravitas through a football team's legacy.

 

[Chaka]

I chose Jewish stereotypes because I'm Jewish so I felt comfortable

And why is it ok for the people who find the word offensive to adopt it as their own? Seems logical that they'd be the last group to want use the word if they really find it offensive.

Do you have a point or is this just another example of white people problems?

It's a question, that apparently, you don't have an answer for.

The answer is that is a stupid point you are trying to make. I know where you are trying to go with this but the only answer is that it's okay because they say it's okay.

If it bothers you so much no one is preventing you from going up to a group of young black men and dropping a couple "What's up my ####as?" or "####a please!".

Go for it and Godspeed to you.

 

[tonydead]

In for a dime, in for a dollar. If you are going to say its offensive, you can't keep using it even in conversation about the name.

Until everyone debating this issue on radio, tv or otherwise starts saying the "R-word" instead of "Redskins" it's pretty hypocritical.

Makes you wonder what the heck we are going to do when find another R or N word that is offensive that we need to abolish. How will we converse then?

"Negro" (Spanish for black) - not ok

Its been a long time since I took spanish, but I don't think the spanish word fro black is pronounced the same as the word describing Black americans.

It's typed out there. Pronounce it however you want.

In for a dime, in for a dollar. If you are going to say its offensive, you can't keep using it even in conversation about the name.

Until everyone debating this issue on radio, tv or otherwise starts saying the "R-word" instead of "Redskins" it's pretty hypocritical.

Makes you wonder what the heck we are going to do when find another R or N word that is offensive that we need to abolish. How will we converse then?

Pretty easily just like we do now.

And more and more people and news outlets have, in fact, stopped using that word. I doubt people stopped using the N-word overnight, and even there we don't have anywhere close to 100% of people not using it.

When your great great grand kid has to reference "R-word #23" in her history paper it's going to seem rather silly.

you think people are using the word "redskin" in history papers?

You think they wont if the Washington Redskins are forced to change their name?