Senator threatens NFL's tax-exempt status over the Redskins name

[Tonitrus]

The best (only?) example I can think of of failure to ban "insulting" language is black and African American.

For what is it worth, in the few cases at my work, where I needed to describe someone's race (as it happened, to persons of that same race), my cautious attempts to use "African-American" were met with bemusement and laughter, including a jocular "you mean black?" retort (from a person of that same race).

Granted, the amusement was probably far more from my pretty transparent, and self-concious attempt to make sure I was being non-offensive. 

[crazy canuck]

The best (only?) example I can think of of failure to ban "insulting" language is black and African American.

For what is it worth, in the few cases at my work, where I needed to describe someone's race (as it happened, to persons of that same race), my cautious attempts to use "African-American" were met with bemusement and laughter, including a jocular "you mean black?" retort (from a person of that same race).

Granted, the amusement was probably far more from my pretty transparent, and self-concious attempt to make sure I was being non-offensive. 

Yeah, context and intention is important.

[The Brain]

We should never use terms that offend somebody.

[crazy canuck]

We should never use terms that offend somebody.

There of course circumstances where it may be appropriate to do so.  Naming a sports team is not one of them.

[alfred russel]

There of course circumstances where it may be appropriate to do so.  Naming a sports team is not one of them.

I really doubt the term "redskins" was offensive when the team was named.

[Tonitrus]

There of course circumstances where it may be appropriate to do so.  Naming a sports team is not one of them.

I really doubt the term "redskins" was offensive when the team was named.

I concede it may be somewhat like "negro" (though for myself "redskin" just sounds to my ear like it's naturally pejorative), which seemed perfectly acceptable in the 60's Civil Rights era, but almost no one would use these days.

[MadImmortalMan]

Well it begs the question why would anyone want to name their sports team something naturally pejorative. Banana Slugs aside, naturally.

[crazy canuck]

There of course circumstances where it may be appropriate to do so.  Naming a sports team is not one of them.

I really doubt the term "redskins" was offensive when the team was named.

Why?

[Valmy]

The 1930s might not be the best era when it comes to determining if something is offensive of not when it comes to race

I do not think the name was picked out of any desire to be offensive or crass or crude or anything like that. Nor was it picked out of respect or admiration. It was picked because they were trying to attract the loyalty of Boston Braves fans.

[alfred russel]

There of course circumstances where it may be appropriate to do so.  Naming a sports team is not one of them.

I really doubt the term "redskins" was offensive when the team was named.

Why?

Why would you name your team something offensive?

[crazy canuck]

The 1930s might not be the best era when it comes to determining if something is offensive of not when it comes to race

I do not think the name was picked out of any desire to be offensive or crass or crude or anything like that. Nor was it picked out of respect or admiration. It was picked because they were trying to attract the loyalty of Boston Braves fans.

I think the point is that it probably always considered offensive by native americans.  Its just that the whites have finally figured that out.

[Valmy]

I think the point is that it probably always considered offensive to native americans.  It just that the whites have finally figured that out.

I don't claim to be an expert on what whites or native americans in the 1930s might have felt about things. I think the point is that it is not relevant now. If it was not insulting to 1930s native americans and this could be proved somehow would that change anything? Of course not.

[crazy canuck]

I think the point is that it probably always considered offensive to native americans.  It just that the whites have finally figured that out.

I don't claim to be an expert on what whites or native americans in the 1930s might have felt about things. I think the point is that it is not relevant now. If it was not insulting to 1930s native americans and this could be proved somehow would that change anything? Of course not.

I was responding to Dorsey's comment that name wasn't offensive when it was first used. 

Further, if it has always been offensive you say that doesn't change anything?

[Valmy]

I was responding to Dorsey's comment that name wasn't offensive when it was first used. 

It might not have been. So what? The original intent behind choosing the name had nothing to do with a desire to be or not be offensive anyway.

[crazy canuck]

I was responding to Dorsey's comment that name wasn't offensive when it was first used. 

It might not have been. So what? The original intent behind choosing the name had nothing to do with a desire to be or not be offensive anyway.

First, the claim that it was never offensive to native americans is likely false.  Why is it wrong to address claims that are likely false?  History doesn't matter to you? .

Second, if the name has always been offensive to native americans why doesn't that make the case stronger?  Wouldn't the case for changing the name be weakened in native americans once thought it was a swell name - to use the vernacular of the time.