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

[Barrister]

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.

I would think the obvious difference is that the Washington Redskins aren't actually linked to any indian groups in any way.

It's well established that affected groups can use whatever term they want in any manner they want (be it nigger, queer or whatever) but that doesn't make it okay for  other groups to use those same words.

By the way, I think it was wrong to force the UND Fighting Sioux to change their name.

[celedhring]

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.

I don't think anybody is taking issue with the Redskins logo, they could call themselves the Washington Navajos (or whatever tribe inhabited that area) with the same logo and it would be okay.

Calling one white isn't a slur, but if you were a minority and somebody called you, dunno, "milk skin" then I'm sure it would be.

[grumbler]

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

So, if a black man refers to himself as a "nigger," that means that "nigger" is not a slur?

Didn't think so.  Your argument fails.

"Redskin" has been a slur or, at best, a neutral term as far back as history records the term.  I cannot think of a single context in which I have seen it  used as a compliment, though you are free to correct my ignorance.  "Red man" is different - and merely archaic, rather than racist.

[garbon]

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.

I don't think anybody is taking issue with the Redskins logo, they could call themselves the Washington Navajos (or whatever tribe inhabited that area) with the same logo and it would be okay.

I don't know about that. The Stanford Indian didn't have terrible term nor was it a hideous caricature and it got dropped. I think there is something to be said for an ethnicity not wanted to be represented as a mascot. (Unless that group is in control and/or empowered by said representation.)

[Barrister]

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

So, if a black man refers to himself as a "nigger," that means that "nigger" is not a slur?

Didn't think so.  Your argument fails.

"Redskin" has been a slur or, at best, a neutral term as far back as history records the term.  I cannot think of a single context in which I have seen it  used as a compliment, though you are free to correct my ignorance.  "Red man" is different - and merely archaic, rather than racist.

You should look more closely at my posts in this thread.  Heck, you should even look at the next line in my post, which you cropped out.

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

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

[celedhring]

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.

I don't think anybody is taking issue with the Redskins logo, they could call themselves the Washington Navajos (or whatever tribe inhabited that area) with the same logo and it would be okay.

I don't know about that. The Stanford Indian didn't have terrible term nor was it a hideous caricature and it got dropped. I think there is something to be said for an ethnicity not wanted to be represented as a mascot. (Unless that group is in control and/or empowered by said representation.)

I think that's overreaction, but well, I'm white. Fair enough.

[grumbler]

You should look more closely at my posts in this thread.  Heck, you should even look at the next line in my post, which you cropped out.

I cropped out all the stuff that wasn't relevant to the point in contention.  The argument that some Indians used the term "redskin" for themselves (and I am not sure that this is even true, as every case I have seen cited to prove this point turns out to be a case where the term "redskin" was used by a translator, so it didn't come from an Indian after all).

I don't think that you can make a historical case for the term not being a slur.  At best, it was sometimes used on a neutral fashion.  At worst, it was blatant racism. There is no math in which the historical "slur" plus "maybe-not-a-slur" equals a historical "not a slur at all."

The fact that substantial numbers of people see it as a slur today doesn, of course, make it a slur today, as you noted.  That's not in contention between us.

[Barrister]

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.

I don't think anybody is taking issue with the Redskins logo, they could call themselves the Washington Navajos (or whatever tribe inhabited that area) with the same logo and it would be okay.

I don't know about that. The Stanford Indian didn't have terrible term nor was it a hideous caricature and it got dropped. I think there is something to be said for an ethnicity not wanted to be represented as a mascot. (Unless that group is in control and/or empowered by said representation.)

I think that's overreaction, but well, I'm white. Fair enough.

WHile I think the Redskins are a pretty easy and obvious case, there are other situations where it's much murkier.

I mentioned the UND Fighting Sioux.  They were caught up in the same NCAA issues as Stanford.  The University was told to go and get the blessing of the two local Sioux tribes to be allowed to use the name.  I voted in favour.  The other simply never had a vote.  It wasn't good enough, and they had to change their name despite being a very respectful and positive use of Sious symbols and name.

[KRonn]

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.

The meaning of words change over time.

Now, in 2014, the term "Redskin" is a slur.

Yeah, that's a good point. And as others have pointed out as well, the origin of the phrase may not be so much  positive after all, and just as much was used as a slur or to demean.

[Admiral Yi]

I don't think anybody is taking issue with the Redskins logo, they could call themselves the Washington Navajos (or whatever tribe inhabited that area) with the same logo and it would be okay.

I understand that.  But people are conflating the two issues.

Calling one white isn't a slur, but if you were a minority and somebody called you, dunno, "milk skin" then I'm sure it would be.

But the issue on the table is the name Redskins, not Prune Skins.

(Or beet skins.)

[alfred russel]

WHile I think the Redskins are a pretty easy and obvious case, there are other situations where it's much murkier.

I mentioned the UND Fighting Sioux.  They were caught up in the same NCAA issues as Stanford.  The University was told to go and get the blessing of the two local Sioux tribes to be allowed to use the name.  I voted in favour.  The other simply never had a vote.  It wasn't good enough, and they had to change their name despite being a very respectful and positive use of Sious symbols and name.

I also think people should just get over themselves. I can't think of a single team name that would offend me. Maybe that is because I'm white. But I'm of Italian ancestry, and if Dan Snyder wants to call the team some derogatory name toward Italians, I don't care. If he wants to single me out and change the name to "AR's Female Ancestors were all Dirty Whores", I really don't care about that either. I just think it would be a hard name to fit on a jersey.

[derspiess]

White guilt is a funny thing.

Eh if the name was the Kraut Jew Killers I would want that one changed to.

Actually, Fightin' Krauts would be an awesome team name.  Think of the mascot possibilities.

[DontSayBanana]

For the 2015 NFL season, several name changes were instituted.  The Detroit Lions are now known as the Niggers, the San Francisco 49ers are now the Faggots, the New York Giants have been renamed the Guineas, and the New York Jets will from now on be known as the Kikes.

When prompted for comment, Mr. Alfred Russel shrugged and said, "Meh.  Doesn't really seem any more offensive than the Redskins."

[derspiess]

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.

I miss Chief Noc-A-Homa

[Ed Anger]

White guilt is a funny thing.

Eh if the name was the Kraut Jew Killers I would want that one changed to.

Actually, Fightin' Krauts would be an awesome team name.  Think of the mascot possibilities.

A giant bratwurst.