Redskins

[Angel4Truth]

Well this is just a clear-cut case of how impressed you are with yourself. I've never visited your profile.

http://www.theologyonline.com/forum...r_messaging&u=13987&page=16#visitor_messaging

You left me a message on it.

 

[Granite]

You sure did, back when you were on my friends list - and ive told you before.

You can pretend anything you want, your name was in the little box of those who have visited my profile before and it didnt get there without you being on it, sorry.

Dont make idiotic statements and you wont get called on them.

I don't remember ever visiting it and I'm not going to sucked into one of your narcissistic little whirlpools. Sorry to break the news but this thread isn't about you.

If anybody would like to get back on topic let me know.

 

[Granite]

The "we mean no offense by the name" reminds me of a line from Eastwood's best film: "You may not intend to give offense, sir, but you're laying it on pretty thick."

 

[Lon]

But that's not what they're being called in this case, and you know it.

Would you call an American Indian a redskin to their face? Yes or no.

My grandmother was half. I would have called her redskin, yes.
My mother was 1/4 and married 1/4, so I am 1/4 of blackfoot and I believe Iroquois (1/8 and 1/8). I've taught on the reservation and have spent time with full-blooded Duwamish natives. Not one of them was bothered by either Indian or Redskin. I've spent time with a few native families when I lived in Alaska as well, and they have no problem calling themselves Eskimo, though it too has been used in a derogatory manner.

I'm not aware of anyone who thinks the reservation situation is anything less than a shameful disgrace.

Yes, I think that such must be seen in that light but we were doing it to each other long before whites ever came (if I can speak from my 1/4 blood at all). I suppose Grandma only being half disqualifies me. But we had a balanced view of these matters and felt we did some of it to ourselves. Not that such is deserved or an excuse. In my state, they are buying land back and may one day get a lot of territory back.

 

[Granite]

A recap...

Many TOLers are fond of pointing to the dictionary as the be-all end-all of a topic or issue (and Lord help you if you don't care about the definition; they will pounce on you). So, why isn't the dictionary definition of "redskin" good enough in this case?

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/redskin?q=redskin

Nothing is gained by keeping the name; we lose nothing by changing it; we gain, at least, a (very) small victory in the name of dignity and mutual respect.

The word was used to refer to dead Indians and the bounties paid out for their scalps.

Intention seems beside the point.

 

[Lon]

A recap...

Many TOLers are fond of pointing to the dictionary as the be-all end-all of a topic or issue (and Lord help you if you don't care about the definition; they will pounce on you). So, why isn't the dictionary definition of "redskin" good enough in this case?

Nothing is gained by keeping the name; we lose nothing by changing it; we gain, at least, a (very) small victory in the name of dignity and mutual respect.

The word was used to refer to dead Indians and the bounties paid out for their scalps.

Intention seems beside the point.

Er, I looked this up. You folks must be using a different dictionary than I do Article Wikipedia Websters /Dictionary.com (couldn't find it in my older complete edition so this one is surprisingly limited to modern sentiment.

 

[Desert Reign]

This is an issue more of good taste, dignity, and respect, not some insidious assault by the "thought police" who are trying to steal our "freedom," or somesuch.

In which case it should not be a matter of law or anyone suing or bullying anyone else.

What exactly would we lose here? Practically and specifically--what advantage is there in keeping this ugly little name?

We would lose our freedom. Nothing much really, just that.
You see, words are arbitrary. We could have used any other word. If you make a law that you aren't allowed to use that word (or a societal rule of some kind) you could still use another word to convey the same meaning. All you have done is to make people frustrated at having their tongues tied. What you really need is not the control over words but the control over intent. You would have to outlaw 'the use of any words which have a disparaging intent towards any person based on their race, etc.' Now c'mon, be serious... This is not the subject of law but of education. You can't have people going round worried in case they utter the wrong word. You can use perfectly ordinary words and yet still convey the most abject hatred. Or you can use words with known connotations of hatred in the most innocent and unintentional way. It's not about the words. You focus on the words, you lose the intent. You end up with rules that don't do no one any good and cause a whole lot of frustration.

We would gain just a little something, a modicum, perhaps, of respect for a proud people we've treated disgracefully. That's not asking for a whole lot.

No problem with that. But that ain't the same as telling someone they aren't allowed to use this or that word. If the Washington Redskins want to change their name, I am sure that's fine. Like that village in Spain I mentioned before. They did it of their own accord. If you really want to give respect there are a lot of more practical things you can be getting up to.
By the way, I have heard of the Redskins a lot but I have ever once considered their name to be an affront to the red Indians.

 

[fool]

Bingo!

A sports team doesn't name itself after something they dislike or intend to mock. They named themselves the Redskins because they believed that was a tough, proud, and good, name to be called.

:mock: Liberals

And in 100 years someone might name their team the "No Limit Niggas" in some misguided tribute to Trayvon Martin and will argue the same thing.
But;
Some small group of educated people may take offence at the "Niggas" part and posit that just because black people may call each other that doesn't mean it's OK for YOU to call them that and that it was a term of hatred and oppression and that should not be forgotten.

 

[Lon]

What if we just let them rename themselves the Washington Rednecks? :think:

If they really wanted to offend, however, they should have named themselves the "British Redskin Bounty Hunters!" That would have ensured there was intended offense instead of beating around the bush or naming themselves the ones who would fight for every redblooded redskin among them. :think:

Seriously :think:

Forgive me too for being a little proud of my native blood. If we were back a few years, it is the forked-tongues I'd likely scalp. Who? Those more worried about what someone is calling me rather than buying me a fishing boat to make up for what was stolen. I can fight my own battles on this particular. Once I start one, if you want to join me, go for it. You can swing alongside me any day, but don't start a fight for me thinking I'm not fierce strong or proud. My ancestors would have hung you up by your skin to see if you were tough enough because we didn't like a lot of talk but show instead. I'd think that Redskins would be in honor of that. The bible speaks of such as well. We walk the talk and then don't have to talk so much and expect it of others. In our modern age, buy me a fishing boat (or a few business suits), or name a football team for me and the tribe and we'll call it even. Don't go looking for fights that we ourselves are not that interested in. That's actually a slap in our faces. I am a fierce warrior, no beggar. Again, being only 1/4, I don't know if I can speak for Natives but I have some pride in what I am and cannot change that. I have only 1/8 French blood. I have no idea what else I am, but the largest part I know of is Indian.

 

[Granite]

In which case it should not be a matter of law or anyone suing or bullying anyone else.

Sometimes the law is there to compel folks to do what they should have done on their own.

We would lose our freedom. Nothing much really, just that.

Give me. A. Break.

We could have used any other word. If you make a law that you aren't allowed to use that word (or a societal rule of some kind) you could still use another word to convey the same meaning. All you have done is to make people frustrated at having their tongues tied.

So the K-word and N-word and any other slur we can think of are all out there to be used in polite society--freely, eagerly!--lest some cretins get frustrated. My gosh, but you've got a big heart.

What you really need is not the control over words but the control over intent.

Agreed. And I don't believe the intent in this case was purely virtuous, for that matter. Consider the source of the team name: An avowed and brazen racist.

You would have to outlaw 'the use of any words which have a disparaging intent towards any person based on their race, etc.' Now c'mon, be serious... This is not the subject of law but of education. You can't have people going round worried in case they utter the wrong word.

In polite company or society maybe folks should think before they blurt the first thing that comes to mind. There's a thing my father referred to as "dinner table talk." Using a cheap slur like "redskin" ain't dinner table talk, DR. On this I think we'd agree. Even Angel wouldn't be willing to use the word casually.

Would anyone here, for that matter? Would you call an American Indian a redskin to their face?

If the Washington Redskins want to change their name, I am sure that's fine.

Would you have considered segregation "fine"?

By the way, I have heard of the Redskins a lot but I have ever once considered their name to be an affront to the red Indians.

And I've known folks who thought "Jew you down" was a harmless aside. It's not.

 

[Town Heretic]

Oh yeah, the one's sitting in high places making problems out of nothing, which is what ALL specialty groups do.

Whereas diminishing something institutionally insulting to the minority in question is rather what a certain segment of the majority tends to do.

Go down south, for example, and notice black people themselves, whether redneck or thug, making use of the Confederate flag.

I was born and make my home in the South. That mostly doesn't happen. Blacks here mostly see and disparage that flag as a remnant of a racist past they'd as soon see covered in something other than mistaken glory.

Now go ask the NAACP about it, and they will say it's racist.

Then they'd be overreaching. But it's a symbol, in large part, of a racist institution.

... It is otherwise virtually true that Native Americans simply do not care, and this whole thing is just being blown out the water for no good reason.

No it isn't true, which is why I linked to an article that not only mentioned current efforts but that efforts have been ongoing for decades.

A sports team doesn't name itself after something they dislike or intend to mock

I can believe that.

They named themselves the Redskins because they believed that was a tough, proud, and good, name to be called.

Maybe so. But here's the point I just finished making: it's something very different to a large part of the population it represents.

Okay, it wasn't intended and the makers didn't know. Now they and you and I do. So how we respond to that says something about us.

:mock: Liberals

No, it's no more a liberal issue than the Civil Rights movement was about liberalism because they were the ones doing the fighting against an entrenched conservative front, strongly Southern.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Okay, it wasn't intended and the makers didn't know. Now they and you and I do.

You and I know what?

 

[Town Heretic]

You and I know what?

I told you in my response, right before the part you quoted, that a sizable part of that community is offended by the use, that there has been an ongoing and several decades long attempt by representatives of those Native Americans to have the name changed. A name whose use Merriam Webster notes is usually intended as offensive.

I think many around here from the majority side of things are just tired of feeling pushed around by this or that minority and are responding to this more in that spirit than because they really think it's a good idea to keep a name that offends many of the people it purports to represent with good intention.

The NFL commissioner said that a significantly smaller number than that would be enough. I think he's right.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

I told you in my response, that a sizable part of that community is offended by the use, that there has been an ongoing and several decades long attempt by representatives of those Native Americans to have the name changed. A name whose use Merriam Webster notes is usually intended as offensive.

I think many around here from the majority side of things are just tired of feeling pushed around by this or that minority and are responding to this more in that spirit than because they really think it's a good idea to keep a name that offends many of the people it purports to represent with good intention.

The NFL commissioner said that a significantly smaller number than that would be enough. I think he's right.

The only people that I see offended by the Redskins mascot are a bunch of limp-wristed liberals.

 

[Desert Reign]

Sometimes the law is there to compel folks to do what they should have done on their own.

This is really your mentality. This argument was not about what the law intended to do. It was about what effect the law would have in a particular case.
You decided some while ago to reject Christ and in so doing you no longer have any clear basis for doing what is right. All you can do is resort to making laws that tell people what to do and not to do. You have a very poor concept of motivation and encouragement and your idea of new life and a new heart is but a distant memory. You have no firm foundation on which to build; your edifice is just a scaffold that looks solid and ticks boxes but lets the rain in all the time. And the rest of your post is just clutching at emptiness and making straw men.

 

[Town Heretic]

The only people that I see offended by the Redskins mascot are a bunch of limp-wristed liberals.

Then you should open your eyes a bit wider. But even if that were true (and it isn't) why should that matter? Why should your disdain for liberals keep you from supporting the measure (to change the name) any more than it should have kept you from supporting the Civil Rights movement?

 

[Granite]

This is really your mentality. This argument was not about what the law intended to do. It was about what effect the law would have in a particular case.

Are you going to address the rest of my post?

You decided some while ago to reject Christ and in so doing you no longer have any clear basis for doing what is right.

Oh for crying out loud. We're talking about a football team here, you lecturing little drama queen. Get off your high horse before we're all stepping in what it drops.

 

[Skybringr]

Nothing is gained by keeping the name; we lose nothing by changing it; we gain, at least, a (very) small victory in the name of dignity and mutual respect.

A lot is gained by keeping the name. It states that people need to grow up and focus on actual issues instead of wasting away at projecting anything that they find 'offensive'.

Seriously, so far people have managed to make this a civil rights issue- a name of a football team.

That's rank nonsense.

It's just another victory for political correctness, the same demon that hinders our sufficiency for doing just about anything when it comes to politics, religion, security, and so on.
It's sad that people have to walk on eggshells not to 'offend' somebody.

 

[Town Heretic]

A lot is gained by keeping the name. It states that people need to grow up and focus on actual issues instead of wasting away at projecting anything that they find 'offensive'.

They aren't projecting, unless you own a really bad dictionary. And it's not an either/or in terms of important or lesser issues. That's why you likely don't spend all of your political energy on one issue either.

Seriously, so far people have managed to make this a civil rights issue- a name of a football team.

That's rank nonsense.

I'd agree if that was the objection. No one's civil rights are being violated. But the actual objection is reasonable. The response to it should be too.

Again, if the issue was a team called the New York Spear Chuckers with a live minstrel show in black-face at the halftime, would you be talking about thicker skin or wasteful efforts?

It's just another victory for political correctness, the same demon that hinders our sufficiency for doing just about anything when it comes to politics, religion, security, and so on.

Like I said to Knight, this isn't about that. It's about a name usually offensive in nature being used to represent a segment of our society and a large number of those people naturally objecting.

Now if, as some suggest, the original naming was meant in a different spirit (and I can see that easily enough) then understanding it isn't meeting that intent should be the foundation for seriously considering its reframing.

But instead it's meeting the sort of opposition I spoke to earlier and we're treated to talk about liberals or PC instead of the thing sitting right in front of you, the slur I'd bet you wouldn't use to one of those people it offends if they walked into your home, because if we can scrape away what this isn't about and get you to face the human truth at its center I'm betting that you're decent enough people to see it.

It's sad that people have to walk on eggshells not to 'offend' somebody.

Rather, it's sad to see conservative voices defending the absurd because to them the issue has to be about something other than the actual issue.

 

[Daedalean's_Sun]

What if a mostly black team uses Vikings?

Names such as Chiefs, Braves, Seminoles, Chippewas, and Chieftains, haven't been scrutinized in the same degree as 'redskins'. This is understandable given the prevalence of ethnic groups being used as sports mascots. Vikings, Irish, Scots, Celts, Knicks, etc.. I personally have no problem using ethnic groups as sports mascots, so long as they are done respectfully.

I can see how redskin, might be offensive. Imagine instead of the Minnesota Vikings, they were the Minnesota 'Whiteskins', or perhaps the Soledad Aztecs changed to the Soledad 'Brownskins'. I venture it is seen as more offensive because it reduces the most distinguishing characteristic of an ethnic group to the color of their skin.

The change in mascot names is not without precedent, though:

• The Dickinson State Savages were renamed the "Blue Hawks" in 1972.
  
• Southeastern Oklahoma State Savages, were renamed "Savage Storm" in 2006
  
• Savannah High School in Missouri, currently uses 'Savages' as their school mascot.
  
• Tecumseh High School in Oklahoma also currently uses 'savages' as their school mascot.
  
• And this isn't relegated to Native Americans. Pekin High Chinks of Illinois, were renamed the "Dragons" in 1980.