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

[Berkut]

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.

Or more to the point (especially when comparing to terms for blacks that were commonly used, to include "nigger") whites simply did not care one way or the other if Native Americans found it offensive.

It's not like back in the 50s black people were ok with being called niggers by whites - it was just that the whites doing so didn't give a shit what they thought.

Hell, just like white people in South Carolina apparently didn't care what black people thought about a Confederate flag flying over the capitol building. I rather doubt many black people thought that was awesome.

[Valmy]

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? .

Sure but we are not talking about ancient history here. We are talking about something today.

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.

No because this is not the 1930s. And there are many instances of native americans themselves using names like this for their teams at the time. But you know there also black people doing black face minstrelsy at the time so that probably doesn't mean shit. However, one way or the other, I don't think the standards of that time are applicable today.

The name is considered offensive now. And the stubborn refusal to budge on this issue signals a contempt for the issues at hand. Well actually it signals the remarkable incompetence, stupidity, and arrogance of Dan Snyder.

[Valmy]

It's not like back in the 50s black people were ok with being called niggers by whites - it was just that the whites doing so didn't give a shit what they thought.

That was considered a very vulgar word even amongst whites. No way anybody would have used that word in this sense at the time.

[Berkut]

It's not like back in the 50s black people were ok with being called niggers by whites - it was just that the whites doing so didn't give a shit what they thought.

That was considered a very vulgar word even amongst whites. No way anybody would have used that word in this sense at the time.

Of course - but it was used commonly anyway, because it was vulgar, and the people using it did not care if black people were offended or not.

And I doubt anyone went to Native Americans and asked what they thought about the term "Redskin". Because nobody cared what the answer would be anyway.

[Valmy]

Of course - but it was used commonly anyway, because it was vulgar, and the people using it did not care if black people were offended or not.

They cared very much that it was offensive to black people. It was used specifically to offend them.

And I doubt anyone went to Native Americans and asked what they thought about the term "Redskin". Because nobody cared what the answer would be anyway.

I have seen it claimed that it was no more offensive at the time than calling us 'whites' today. Still it would be weird having a team called the 'whites'. But even if that is true I agree that it was not a consideration when the team name was chosen nor do I think it should be a consideration regarding the name today.

The club claims the name was chosen as a tribute to the courage and bravery and blah blah of the native americans and there was some personal connection that led to the name being chosen. That is historically demonstrable to be a false claim. But even if it was true they still should change it.

[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.

Or more to the point (especially when comparing to terms for blacks that were commonly used, to include "nigger") whites simply did not care one way or the other if Native Americans found it offensive.

It's not like back in the 50s black people were ok with being called niggers by whites - it was just that the whites doing so didn't give a shit what they thought.

Hell, just like white people in South Carolina apparently didn't care what black people thought about a Confederate flag flying over the capitol building. I rather doubt many black people thought that was awesome.

Fair point.

[Valmy]

Fair point.

They might have given a shit if they were aware of it. When the culture around you suggests one thing or the other as normal, you don't know what you don't know. There is probably something horribly offensive we are doing right now that future generations will be totally disgusted we are doing but it is not because we do not give a shit about the issue it is because we are just not aware of it. Plenty of very good people just had these views ingrained into them. The active maliciousness implied strikes me as possibly historically false.

But again that is not the issue. I can forgive people in the 1930s for things, I wasn't there. I might have done them myself. God knows I rooted for this team and it never even registered to me there was a problem with the name until I saw the protests around the 1992 Super Bowl. I just never thought about it. It was not an actively malicious case of not giving a shit what native americans thought.

But we are not talking about white people then we are talking about the dudes running the Redskins now.

[garbon]

They might have given a shit if they were aware of it. When the culture around you suggests one thing or the other as normal, you don't know what you don't know. There is probably something horribly offensive we are doing right now that future generations will be totally disgusted we are doing but it is not because we do not give a shit about the issue it is because we are just not aware of it. Plenty of very good people just had these views ingrained into them. The active maliciousness implied strikes me as possibly historically false.

I disagree. Within my lifetime, a goodly segment of people in the US treated gay people like shit. They didn't know that was wrong?

Hell go a little bit further back and my parents got rudeness directed their way for being an interracial couple. They didn't know that was wrong?

From what I've heard from my mother, as well, sexism was incredibly rampant in the 80s and 90s in the pharma industry. People didn't know sexism was wrong?

[Valmy]

I disagree. Within my lifetime, a goodly segment of people in the US treated gay people like shit. They didn't know that was wrong?

Hell go a little bit further back and my parents got rudeness directed their way for being an interracial couple. They didn't know that was wrong?

From what I've heard from my mother, as well, sexism was incredibly rampant in the 80s and 90s in the pharma industry. People didn't know sexism was wrong?

I don't know. I do remember gay jokes being considered pretty harmless and announcing your uncomfortableness with homosexuality among men was normal. I don't ever remember partaking but I didn't think anything about it. And I don't think the guys saying those things thought they were doing anything wrong either. Today I would make my displeasure very apparent but I doubt that would have happened today.

But even if they did think it correct back then well guess what? Now is not then and I think we have a consensus those attitudes are wrong and should not be tolerated today. I don't think the fact it may or may not have been considered wrong in 1960 particularly relevant to that.

[Valmy]

For example, lets say somebody named something that included a gay slur in its name back in 1980 or whatever. Maybe it was considered light hearted and maybe even some gay people at the time had no problem with it and no offense was meant. Still should change it today.

[dps]

It's not like back in the 50s black people were ok with being called niggers by whites - it was just that the whites doing so didn't give a shit what they thought.

That was considered a very vulgar word even amongst whites. No way anybody would have used that word in this sense at the time.

Of course - but it was used commonly anyway, because it was vulgar, and the people using it did not care if black people were offended or not.

Sure they cared.  They wanted black people to be offended and demeaned by it.

[Malthus]

For example, lets say somebody named something that included a gay slur in its name back in 1980 or whatever. Maybe it was considered light hearted and maybe even some gay people at the time had no problem with it and no offense was meant. Still should change it today.

Does that mean that Arkansas will have to rename the historic town of Bumfuck? 

[The Brain]

For example, lets say somebody named something that included a gay slur in its name back in 1980 or whatever. Maybe it was considered light hearted and maybe even some gay people at the time had no problem with it and no offense was meant. Still should change it today.

Mr. Brain says fuck you.

[Valmy]

For example, lets say somebody named something that included a gay slur in its name back in 1980 or whatever. Maybe it was considered light hearted and maybe even some gay people at the time had no problem with it and no offense was meant. Still should change it today.

Does that mean that Arkansas will have to rename the historic town of Bumfuck? 

We have towns named everything in this country don't we?

[crazy canuck]

Fair point.

They might have given a shit if they were aware of it. When the culture around you suggests one thing or the other as normal, you don't know what you don't know. There is probably something horribly offensive we are doing right now that future generations will be totally disgusted we are doing but it is not because we do not give a shit about the issue it is because we are just not aware of it. Plenty of very good people just had these views ingrained into them. The active maliciousness implied strikes me as possibly historically false.

But again that is not the issue. I can forgive people in the 1930s for things, I wasn't there. I might have done them myself. God knows I rooted for this team and it never even registered to me there was a problem with the name until I saw the protests around the 1992 Super Bowl. I just never thought about it. It was not an actively malicious case of not giving a shit what native americans thought.

But we are not talking about white people then we are talking about the dudes running the Redskins now.

In the 70s and 80s I grew up in a community where my Sikh friends were often subjected to racial slurs.  The most common were "Paki" and "Hindu" (which showed the complete ignorance of those uttering the slurs but I digress). The Sikhs knew the comments were meant to be racial slurs.  The people making the slurs knew they were making racial slurs and the white kids who didn't make the racial slurs knew exactly what was going on.

The notion that because a racial or bigoted comment is common place is in some sense exculpatory is not very convincing to me.

That the owners of the team didn't care that it was a racial slur or not (even after it being brought to their attention) makes a lot more sense to me.