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

[Capetan Mihali]

Redskins is a racist slur, and Chief Wahoo is a racist caricature.  I don't see how anybody with more than a passing knowledge of American history can really argue otherwise in good faith.  It's pretty far from a "PC" interpretation.

Whether as a society we're OK with racial slurs/caricatures in professional sports is a different question.  So is whether it's worth it to change the traditional names/logos of teams.

[Admiral Yi]

I consider myself to have at least a passing knowledge of American history and am unaware of historical cases of redskin being used as a slur.  I've always considered it a neutral descriptor, as much of a slur as the word "Indian."

I've pointed out before that French Canadians, who historically loved the hell out of their Indians, called them peaux-rouges.  Quebecois posters have confirmed that peaux-rouges does not carry any negative connotations.

[grumbler]

I never cared for the name and don't care either way if they keep it, but it isn't a name to demean Amer Indians. I think it comes from the practice of some Indians who painted themselves red before battle to show ferocity.

And nigger isn't a name to demean blacks, because it comes from the French word for "black."

Heh, maybe to get even with the Senator the team should move out of Washington DC. That may not change its tax status but the revenue from the team, players and stadium would be gone from DC.

Heh, this is a joke, right?  Because the Redskins moved out of DC years ago.

[grumbler]

I consider myself to have at least a passing knowledge of American history and am well aware of many historical cases of redskin being used as a slur. I am unaware of any cases where it was used as a compliment.

[Capetan Mihali]

I consider myself to have at least a passing knowledge of American history and am unaware of historical cases of redskin being used as a slur.  I've always considered it a neutral descriptor, as much of a slur as the word "Indian."

Would you ever say something like "My bar trivia team is really diverse: we've got me, a half-Korean; Bill, a black guy; Jill, a Mexican; and Steve, a redskin"?  That doesn't seem remotely possible.  Whereas ".... Steve, an Indian" definitely does.

[Admiral Yi]

Would you ever say something like "My bar trivia team is really diverse: we've got me, a half-Korean; Bill, a black guy; Jill, a Mexican; and Steve, a redskin"?  That doesn't seem remotely possible.  Whereas ".... Steve, an Indian" definitely does.

I would not, because it's an archaic term.

I also wouldn't say "Lee Ham-Fong, a Celestial," but that doesn't make Celestial a slur.

Do you have any specific examples of redskin being used as a slur?

[Capetan Mihali]

I don't have anything in mind.  But many epithets used by people to describe their enemies tend to take on negative connotations during and after the conflict.  So, you might say that this example: "VALUE OF AN INDIAN SCALP: Minnesota Paid Its Pioneers a Bounty for Every Redskin Killed" (http://cdnc.ucr.edu/cgi-bin/cdnc?a=d&d=LAH18971024.2.212#) is just using it as a neutral descriptor, but I'd say the context makes it impossible to treat it that way today

[Admiral Yi]

I don't have anything in mind.  But many epithets used by people to describe their enemies tend to take on negative connotations during and after the conflict.  So, you might say that this example: "VALUE OF AN INDIAN SCALP: Minnesota Paid Its Pioneers a Bounty for Every Redskin Killed" (http://cdnc.ucr.edu/cgi-bin/cdnc?a=d&d=LAH18971024.2.212#) is just using it as a neutral descriptor, but I'd say the context makes it impossible to treat it that way today

Well yeah, the history of American-Indian interaction has been filled with conflict.  But by this logic we would have to consider "Indian" to be a slur as well.  As shown by your own example.

[Barrister]

I consider myself to have at least a passing knowledge of American history and am unaware of historical cases of redskin being used as a slur.  I've always considered it a neutral descriptor, as much of a slur as the word "Indian."

I've pointed out before that French Canadians, who historically loved the hell out of their Indians, called them peaux-rouges.  Quebecois posters have confirmed that peaux-rouges does not carry any negative connotations.

Historically, nope, not a slur.  Natives would even refer to themselves as "redskins".

But in 2014 (and for the previous 50 years)?  A slur.

Would you call a sports team the "slant-eyes" and use a horribly cliched chinese person as a mascot?  "slant eyes" is just a descriptor of the epicanthic fold, right?

[Capetan Mihali]

Well yeah, the history of American-Indian interaction has been filled with conflict.  But by this logic we would have to consider "Indian" to be a slur as well.  As shown by your own example.

"Indian" was always the dominant term in areas where whites were at least ostensibly trying to co-exist with natives; even though it was founded in an "archaic" time also, it's not called the Bureau of Redskin Affairs for nothing.  More importantly, it's been the primary term of self-identification for the group it describes for a long time -- I've never heard of people talking about their redskin ancestors or membership in a redskin tribe.  Which takes a lot further away from the realm of a slur, even though "Native American" is an option that isn't linked with the...more fraught...era of white-Indian relations.

I get that it's not on the same level as "nigger," however. 

[Barrister]

Well yeah, the history of American-Indian interaction has been filled with conflict.  But by this logic we would have to consider "Indian" to be a slur as well.  As shown by your own example.

"Indian" was always the dominant term in areas where whites were at least ostensibly trying to co-exist with natives; even though it was founded in an "archaic" time also, it's not called the Bureau of Redskin Affairs for nothing.  More importantly, it's been the primary term of self-identification for the group it describes for a long time -- I've never heard of people talking about their redskin ancestors or membership in a redskin tribe.  Which takes a lot further away from the realm of a slur, even though "Native American" is an option that isn't linked with the...more fraught...era of white-Indian relations.

I get that it's not on the same level as "nigger," however.

The word "Indian" is a lot more complicated then the word "redskin", which is pretty open and shut.

But Indian... lots of competing factors going on.  Historically of course it's a centuries old mistake - Columbus thinking he had visited India.  As such native people can be peeved at it's continued use for that reason.  Legally however, it has a very specific legal definition - as you say it is the Bureau of Indian Affairs, and we have the Indian Act which legally defines who is and is not an "Indian".  Amongst native people it's developed a usage almost like nigger does amongst blacks - they'll use it is a somewhat self-disparaging manner (e.g. someone who is always late is working on Indian time), but similar use would be inappropriate for a white to use.

[alfred russel]

I've never heard the term redskin used outside of a football context.

[alfred russel]

Historically, nope, not a slur.  Natives would even refer to themselves as "redskins".

But in 2014 (and for the previous 50 years)?  A slur.

With absolutely no knowledge of the history of the word or its common usage, if what you say is true, I don't think they should change their name (absent evidence the name was a slur when it was originated). I'm sure this will be considered a horrible analogy, but "colored" is considered a slur (and it is), then why is NAACP okay? The Redskin franchise has a lot of history and the name is linked to the community for generations, even if it isn't a civil rights organization.

[Admiral Yi]

Historically, nope, not a slur.  Natives would even refer to themselves as "redskins".

But in 2014 (and for the previous 50 years)?  A slur.

Would you call a sports team the "slant-eyes" and use a horribly cliched chinese person as a mascot?  "slant eyes" is just a descriptor of the epicanthic fold, right?

First of all, I don't know why you and others are conflating the Redskins issue with the Chief Wahoo issue.  Chief Wahoo is a ridiculous caricature and should have been axed eons ago.  The Redskins logo is not; he's a total badass.

Second of all, physical descriptors are not necessarily slurs; otherwise you'd have to take offense if I called you white.

[Tonitrus]

Historically, nope, not a slur.  Natives would even refer to themselves as "redskins".

But in 2014 (and for the previous 50 years)?  A slur.

With absolutely no knowledge of the history of the word or its common usage, if what you say is true, I don't think they should change their name (absent evidence the name was a slur when it was originated). I'm sure this will be considered a horrible analogy, but "colored" is considered a slur (and it is), then why is NAACP okay? The Redskin franchise has a lot of history and the name is linked to the community for generations, even if it isn't a civil rights organization.

Or the United Negro College Fund.  Heck, MLK used the term!!!!!1111

Some of the finer distinction in terminology are probably much akin to "Jew" and "Jewish", the former is usually considered offensive more for historical use than logical basis of the word itself.

And hasn't forms of "First Nation" mostly all-but budged out other terms of address in Canada by now?