Support NeoGAF

[cyclonekruse]

Is there a national sports team called The Krauts? This isn't about some theoretical one-on-one discussion where a person called another person a Redskin. It's about a professional sports team with the name.

It's really a similar principle, just applied on a larger scale.

Really, though, my position is that "X word = always offensive" is just lazy. Words are 100% defined by their context. No group of letters or sounds is inherently offensive. They only have the meaning we give to them. So you should look at intent before deciding if something is offensive or not.

Also, if you censor the use of a word, you're just allowing it to have more power over you. Eventually, I hope we get to a point where some idiot can call someone else a "kraut" or a "Redskin" or what-have-you and that person's response is "And? What difference does it make if I'm a kraut? My ancestry doesn't determine who I am as a person. I do."

 

[way more]

Why are people defending the name? It's offensive and needs to be changed.

And for the people saying they'll target other franchises, if the names are offensive than why not? or is it just a typical false assumption that they'll start a fight over nothing?

Because that's what "they" do, they just complain about things that don't matter. They look for ways to be offended, it will never end till they take away all words.

 

[dorkimoe]

what about the cleveland indians logo, or does no one care since its cleveland

they are slowly not using it anymore, the logo on the hat now is a C

 

[Particle Physicist]

Native American here, thought I'd chime in.

Eh, the name is offensive but I really don't give a shit and nobody I know gives a shit either. There are more pressing issues in life than the name of a sports team. Not to mention they'll probably change it to something stupid like what happened with the "Wizards."

You can always think of more pressing issues to anything in life. Inaction due to the perception that there is always something worse in the world is a pretty shitty way to change to world.

 

[Wazzy]

Ya, would suck if they wanted to change other team names as well. People love their team tradition and don't want to see it changed.

Okay but why are we assuming they'll target other franchises where the names aren't offensive?

For example, I think the Chicago Blackhawks name is completely fine and I don't see any proof that they would suddenly be a target if the Redskins name got changed. Unlike say, another team who's franchise has racist roots tied to their name. Then they desrve to be targeted.

But it seems to me like this is becoming another case of "I'm offended that you're offended!"

Because that's what "they" do, they just complain about things that don't matter. They look for ways to be offended, it will never end till they take away all words.

You're joking, right?

 

[Brakke]

BUT WHERE WILL THEY DRAW THE LINE??

As if drawing lines in basically reasonable places isn't a functional definition for a society.

 

[Dreams-Visions]

Video reminded me I need to spend some more time learning about the native american side of my bloodline.

Much neglected.

 

[r3n4ud]

Okay but why are we assuming they'll target other franchises where the names aren't offensive?

For example, I think the Chicago Blackhawks name is completely fine and I don't see any proof that they would suddenly be a target if the Redskins name got changed. Unlike say, another team who's franchise has racist roots tied to their name. Then they desrve to be targeted.

But it seems to me like this is becoming another case of "I'm offended that you're offended!"

I get where you're coming from. People are really offended and want change. I just don't want this is expand to other teams in any sport. We may not find a team name offensive at all, such as the Blackhawks, but other folks may.

I don't want to see the name changing getting out of hand.

 

[Kinvara]

A very powerful ad.

Using an entire race of people as a mascot is a crap thing to do. It's time to make a change.

 

[way more]

It's really a similar principle, just applied on a larger scale.

Really, though, my position is that "X word = always offensive" is just lazy. Words are 100% defined by their context. No group of letters or sounds is inherently offensive. They only have the meaning we give to them. So you should look at intent before deciding if something is offensive or not.

Also, if you censor the use of a word, you're just allowing it to have more power over you. Eventually, I hope we get to a point where some idiot can call someone else a "kraut" or a "Redskin" or what-have-you and that person's response is "And? What difference does it make if I'm a kraut? My ancestry doesn't determine who I am as a person. I do."

Once again you are making this a theoretical instance where one person called another person a word and this is about a national sports team given that name. I'm sorry, but a fictitious one-on-one conversation isn't the same thing as a nationally recognized title. It's great that you are so advanced that you don't believe in racism but let's try to keep things in the real world.

 

[Orayn]

BUT WHERE WILL THEY DRAW THE LINE??

As if drawing lines in basically reasonable places isn't a functional definition for a society.

Reminds me of the whole grossly misquoted shtick about not EVER giving up liberty for safety.

Giving up liberty for safety is the entire Goddamn idea behind living in civilization.

 

[cyclonekruse]

That clearly is not happening here though. The term Redskin is obviously controversial and most definitely insults a significant amount of Native Americans.

To be fair, "significant" doesn't mean a majority. Or even a large minority. I'd want to see actual numbers. Also, just because a group issues a statement doesn't imply that all members of the group agree. The United States officially issues statements or enacts laws all the time. Sometimes in spite of a majority of people wishing otherwise.

But really, I wasn't making a statement one way or the other about this particular case. I was speaking more generally. It could well be that a vast majority of Native Americans dislike the term "Redskin." What I was specifically responding to was your insinuation that because some members of a group find a term offensive, we should automatically change our ways to appease them.

 

[Zaphod]

Sure, but there has to be a question of the reasonableness of those feelings.

Here's a simple test. Call an American Indian a redskin and see if their opinion of your changes for the less. The same applies to all the other words a small portion of white americans seem to be very bothered they can't use as nouns for minorities.

I call lots of my friends 'mother fucker' and 'son of a bitch' but I sure as hell do not expect the random person I interact with to be ok if I start referring to them as 'you son of a bitch.' It's called being polite, not some tyranny of political correctness.

Where's the line on offensive. Should a WNBA team that sets up shop in Miami be called Bitches in Heat?

 

[The One and Done™]

During the finals? It'll probably flop.

Fuck me.

 

[ShironRedshift]

Ya, would suck if they wanted to change other team names as well. People love their team tradition and don't want to see it changed.

Or instead of using slippery slope scare tactics, we judge each team's name on its own merits. The Redskins name is offensive and should go; the name of these other teams aren't and thus won't be. And the thing is, even if we humor the idea of there being a slippery slope (which there isn't, but for the sake of argument), it still doesn't mean anything, because nothing would actually happen, precisely because there aren't any good arguments for changing those teams names. Your slippery slope is just a complete boogeyman, because there would be no momentum to change those teams names and nothing would happen, because no one actually cares, because unlike the Redskins, there is no problem with them and the argument is just a complete strawman to try and avoid changing the Redskins' name.

Point being, ridiculous strawman or no though, each name should be judged based on its own merits. If it's offensive, it should go. And if not, you have nothing to worry about, because there would be no momentum to change them to begin with, because of how ridiculous the name is. This slippery-slope is a complete farce and non-issue.

I get where you're coming from. People are really offended and want change. I just don't want this is expand to other teams in any sport. We may not find a team name offensive at all, such as the Blackhawks, but other folks may.

I don't want to see the name changing getting out of hand.

Why would it be expanded? That's the whole problem with this line of reasoning--there's absolutely no reason it would be and the idea it would be is ridiculous, precisely because as you yourself admit there is no reason to change a team's name if there isn't a problem with it, so unlike with the Redskins, you'd never get any momentum behind those other teams, and things would stay the same, since people would agree that it would be ridiculous to change those names in those cases.

I mean, just look at how much effort is going into trying to get the Redskins' name changed, with naught to show for it as of yet. If it's that hard to change a name that's actually offensive, why are you worried about it even being remotely possible for people to get the names of teams that aren't offensive changed? It's a complete non-issue which has no baring in reality. If it's this hard to change the Redskins' name, then I assure you, you have no need to worry about any other team-it won't happen, precisely because everyone agrees with you that it would be ridiculous and such attempts would build up nowhere near the momentum as there is to change the Redskins' name, and if even with all the momentum there is to change it it's still proving so difficult to get changed, then there's no way these theoretical copycats would ever get the steam to do the same with other teams and would be laughed off if they tried. It's a complete non-issue.

 

[Wazzy]

I get where you're coming from. People are really offended and want change. I just don't want this is expand to other teams in any sport. We may not find a team name offensive at all, such as the Blackhawks, but other folks may.

I don't want to see the name changing getting out of hand.

But you're thinking under the mindset that people are going to start targeting things that aren't actually offensive when that doesn't fall in line with this situation. The reason people are calling for a name change is because this IS offensive. That's why there is an outcry for a name change.

A franchise where the name isn't offensive won't be targeted just because a team name that was offensive was changed.

 

[cyclonekruse]

Once again you are making this a theoretical instance where one person called another person a word and this is about a national sports team given that name. I'm sorry, but a fictitious one-on-one conversation isn't the same thing as a nationally recognized title. It's great that you are so advanced that you don't believe in racism but let's try to keep things in the real world.

Oh, I definitely believe in racism. I just don't believe that every instance of the string of letters of "R-E-D-S-K-I-N-S" is racist or offensive. Again, context. And I do believe that the speaker's/writer's intentions matter, not just the feelings of the offended party. Even on the scale of a national sports team. Whether or not good intentions is enough is, however, debatable. And that's where the percentage of offended parties in the affected group comes into play.

 

[r3n4ud]

Or instead of using slippery slope scare tactics, we judge each team's name on its own merits. The Redskins name is offensive and should go; the name of these other teams aren't and thus won't be. And the thing is, even if we humor the idea of there being a slippery slope (which there isn't, but for the sake of argument), it still doesn't mean anything, because nothing would actually happen, precisely because there aren't any good arguments for changing those teams names. Your slippery slope is just a complete boogeyman, because there would be no momentum to change those teams names and nothing would happen, because no one actually cares, because unlike the Redskins, there is no problem with them and the argument is just a complete strawman to try and avoid changing the Redskins' name.

Point being, ridiculous strawman or no though, each name should be judged based on its own merits. If it's offensive, it should go. And if not, you have nothing to worry about, because there would be no momentum to change them to begin with, because of how ridiculous the name is. This slippery-slope is a complete farce and non-issue.

But you're thinking under the mindset that people are going to start targeting things that aren't actually offensive when that doesn't fall in line with this situation. The reason people are calling for a name change is because this IS offensive. That's why there is an outcry for a name change.

A franchise where the name isn't offensive won't be targeted just because a team name that was offensive was changed.

Well, you guys claim I'm imagining things if the Redskins are renamed that no other teams will be targeted. If you guys are so sure, then let them change the name and lets hope other franchises are safe from the name changing.

I don't want to argue or anything of the matter, just don't want name changing getting out of hand.

 

[Kinvara]

Oh, I definitely believe in racism. I just don't believe that every instance of the string of letters of "R-E-D-S-K-I-N-S" is racist or offensive. Again, context. And I do believe that the speaker's/writer's intentions matter, not just the feelings of the offended party. Even on the scale of a national sports team. Whether or not good intentions is enough is, however, debatable. And that's where the percentage of offended parties in the affected group comes into play.

Letters form words??? What?

If I accidentally kicked someone in the groin, I'd apologize and amend my actions. Not just make excuses like "bbbbut I didn't INTEND to do that".

 

[way more]

Letters form words??? What?

If I accidentally kicked someone in the groin, I'd apologize and amend my actions. Not just make excuses like "bbbbut I didn't INTEND to do that".

But then pretty soon you would be apologizing for breathing, where does it end?

 

[wsoxfan1214]

Native American here, thought I'd chime in.

Eh, the name is offensive but I really don't give a shit and nobody I know gives a shit either. There are more pressing issues in life than the name of a sports team. Not to mention they'll probably change it to something stupid like what happened with the "Wizards."

Disagree and I know some of my extended family members are offended by it as well.

For those mentioning the Blackhawks:

A) The name isn't a racial slur.
B) The logo isn't offensive
C) The name isn't even about native americans.

Chief Wahoo should be the next concern.

 

[cyclonekruse]

If I accidentally kicked someone in the groin, I'd apologize and amend my actions. Not just make excuses like "bbbbut I didn't INTEND to do that".

I simply noted that intention matters. Not that it is the be-all end-all. That said, I find it hard to believe that you wouldn't see the difference between someone getting kicked in the groin on accident and someone getting kicked in the groin deliberately. In the former case, the kicker will likely be apologetic. However, I'd argue that in some circumstances they wouldn't actually be culpable and therefore wouldn't have to feel sorry for anything. Sympathy, yes. Sorry, no.

 

[whytemyke]

Always reminds me of this awesome piece from The Onion:
Redskins’ Kike Owner Refuses To Change Team’s Offensive Name

WASHINGTON—Denying widespread claims that the franchise is being offensive or disrespectful, the Washington Redskins’ kike owner announced Monday that he remains steadfast in his refusal to change the team’s derogatory name. “The Redskins represent 81 years of great history and tradition, and it’s a source of pride for our fans,” said the hook-nosed kike, stressing that the team’s insulting moniker is “absolutely not a racial slur by any means.” “‘Washington Redskins’ is much more than just a name. It stands for strength, courage, and respect—the very values that are so intrinsic to Native American culture.” The shifty-eyed hebe went on to assure fans that he will do “everything in his power” to preserve the team’s proud heritage.

 

[Dead Man]

Ah man, as others have mentioned - this is only the beginning. If they change the Redskins name, they'll be going after other franchises in other sports as well. This is not one and done here.

Such as?

 

[Zaphod]

I simply noted that intention matters. Not that it is the be-all end-all. Sympathy, yes. Sorry, no.

My boss loves to say 'chew them down', I was with him when he said said it to a the Jewish manager of a supply company. Even though he did not mean anything by it the damage was done in the corporate relationship.

For the record, we told him many times before that chew was not the actual word in the phrase but he chose to ignore it.

 

[BPoole]

I support their cause just because it is insulting to have their culture affiliated with such a shitty football team.

 

[TheBryanJZX90]

I simply noted that intention matters. Not that it is the be-all end-all. That said, I find it hard to believe that you wouldn't see the difference between someone getting kicked in the groin on accident and someone getting kicked in the groin deliberately. In the former case, the kicker will likely be apologetic. However, I'd argue that in some circumstances they wouldn't actually be culpable and therefore wouldn't have to feel sorry for anything. Sympathy, yes. Sorry, no.

There are plenty of ways for someone to be culpable for an unintended consequence of their actions.

 

[Kano on the Phone]

It is literally impossible to make sufficient concessions in language to appease everyone. Someone might be offended by "kumquat" because the first syllable sounds like a more vulgar word for semen. People have been offended by "niggardly" because it sounds too close to a certain other word even though its provenance is likely not racial at all. I, as a person of German descent, could get offended by someone calling me a "kraut." Where's the line?

I understand being sensitive to others' feelings to a certain extent. But at some point, people just need thicker skin, too. Where that line is, however, is up for debate. But that's why quantifying other people's feelings is important. If 1 in 10,000,000 people (in the group in question) are offended by something, you probably shouldn't need to alter your speech patterns simply to appease those rare few who take offense. If it's closer to 99%, then you might want to rethink your choice of words.

God, slippery slope arguments are so lazy. Lets never change anything because other things might change. Yawn.

Sure, but there has to be a question of the reasonableness of those feelings. The term "masticate" sounds dirty, but it isn't. What it seems to me is that the term "red skins" sounds antiquated and passe to the way race is talked about in contemporary times. Consequently, it sounds racist. But I'm not convinced that actually makes it racist.

As far as the N-word, the difference is that there is a long history of the use of the n-word to suppress people. Native Americans were (are) certainly suppressed, but, as far as I can tell, the use of the term "red skins" hasn't really been done to do that.

So I'm fine with forcing Washington to change their name. There are just better arguments for doing so. For example, it's certainly insensitive to name a team after (questionable) characteristics of that race. The word "red skin" certainly fits that. Furthermore, you have to question the validity of naming sports teams after ethnic groups at all*

Personally, if it's OK to name a team after a Native American group I think they should change their name to the Powhatans. That's the major indigenous group to Virginia. Get their permission of course, but use it as a spring board to educate people about Native American culture.


*The counter argument to this is that there are white ethnic sports teams as well. For example, Celtics, Fighting Irish, Trojans, Vikings, etc. However, the difference is that white people are naming the teams after themselves. Teams like Red Skins, Indians, Seminoles are not being named after Native Americans.



Wetback is per se deragatory. The term was created for the sole purpose of being pejorative. "Red" is unpopular contemporaneously, but people are fine with describing people as "white", "black" or "brown". Actually, I think "brown" is super racist because it's a catch all phrase to lump disparate people who don't fit the strictest black, white paradigm into a single group.

So you're just arguing to argue then.

 

[cyclonekruse]

C) The name isn't even about native americans.

That doesn't matter if the deciding factor on whether or not something is offensive is whether or not the group in question gets offended by it.

There are plenty of ways for someone to be culpable for an unintended consequence of their actions.

Absolutely. A drunk driver killing a pedestrian, for example. Like I said, it's a factor. Not the be-all, end-all.

God, slippery slope arguments are so lazy. Lets never change anything because other things might change. Yawn.

Oy vey. I wasn't making a slippery slope argument. I was pointing out a similarity in logic, yes, but not claiming that one change would beget another. That would require us humans to apply logic evenly. Which we don't always do. Rather, I was trying to get people to elucidate the meaningful differences between scenarios. And if they can't, then perhaps they should reevaluate their stance. And if they can, then kudos. I'm fine with that outcome too.

 

[Psychoward]

Ya, would suck if they wanted to change other team names as well. People love their team tradition and don't want to see it changed.

Boo fucking hoo when that tradition is a racist slur.

 

[TheBryanJZX90]

I understand being sensitive to others' feelings to a certain extent. But at some point, people just need thicker skin, too. Where that line is, however, is up for debate. But that's why quantifying other people's feelings is important. If 1 in 10,000,000 people (in the group in question) are offended by something, you probably shouldn't need to alter your speech patterns simply to appease those rare few who take offense. If it's closer to 99%, then you might want to rethink your choice of words.

I mean, in the absence of some kind of National Offended Index, that's really all this discussion is seeking to do. People are arguing that the line is at different levels. For what it's worth, what do you think is an acceptable level of offended people? 25%? 49%?

 

[gutter_trash]

isnt it enough that they got near genocided, land stolen, then shipped out to reserves 1000s of miles away from your fertile land then dumped onto the wastelands of Oklahoma where nothing grows isn't enough that we must reduce them to token mascots for your sports dollars?

 

[Dreams-Visions]

isnt it enough that they got near genocided, land stolen, then shipped out to reserves 1000s of miles away from your fertile land then dumped onto the wastelands of Oklahoma where nothing grows isn't enough that we must reduce them to token mascots for your sports dollars?

Indeed.

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2088756-why-dan-snyder-wont-relent-on-redskins-and-why-i-did

Good reading right here, btw.

 

[Brakke]

That doesn't matter if the deciding factor on whether or not something is offensive is whether or not the group in question gets offended by it.

Whether people get "offended" by it isn't even really relevant to me, it sucks because it's planted a flag of pride on a history of genocide. It's a dingus making a stand for ignorance and revisionist history.

 

[Drifters]

Whether people get "offended" by it isn't even really relevant to me, it sucks because it's planted a flag of pride on a history of genocide. It's a dingus making a stand for ignorance and revisionist history.

You know that speaks to all people of all races... Like ever in the history of the known developed world right?

 

[FTF]

Just saw it...interesting. Was effective enough I think.

 

[theignoramus]

isnt it enough that they got near genocided, land stolen, then shipped out to reserves 1000s of miles away from your fertile land then dumped onto the wastelands of Oklahoma where nothing grows isn't enough that we must reduce them to token mascots for your sports dollars?

great post

 

[gutter_trash]

people think that Natives are natives from the reserves that they were dumped in but that is further from the truth.

the truth is that many of them got removed from their lands (mostly fertile lands) then dumped in dust buckets in where crops don't grow. White man says, there, that's your reserve

 

[Korey]

It's really a similar principle, just applied on a larger scale.

Really, though, my position is that "X word = always offensive" is just lazy. Words are 100% defined by their context. No group of letters or sounds is inherently offensive. They only have the meaning we give to them. So you should look at intent before deciding if something is offensive or not.

Also, if you censor the use of a word, you're just allowing it to have more power over you. Eventually, I hope we get to a point where some idiot can call someone else a "kraut" or a "Redskin" or what-have-you and that person's response is "And? What difference does it make if I'm a kraut? My ancestry doesn't determine who I am as a person. I do."

Or we could stop using people's ethnicity as a mascot, let alone a slur?

It's not that difficult.

Change the fucking name already.

 

[TheKaeptain]

Disagree and I know some of my extended family members are offended by it as well.

For those mentioning the Blackhawks:

A) The name isn't a racial slur.
B) The logo isn't offensive
C) The name isn't even about native americans.

Chief Wahoo should be the next concern.

Not only that but Black Hawk (the person the military unit was named after) is also a part of Illinois history. He is also one of the most important Native figures in American history. There is nothing but honor in that name unlike the racist term "Redskin".

 

[Brakke]

You know that speaks to all people of all races... Like ever in the history of the known developed world right?

Race isn't real.

 

[Drifters]

Race isn't real.

So ethnicity is just a cute bumper sticker now?

 

[Particle Physicist]

To be fair, "significant" doesn't mean a majority. Or even a large minority. I'd want to see actual numbers. Also, just because a group issues a statement doesn't imply that all members of the group agree. The United States officially issues statements or enacts laws all the time. Sometimes in spite of a majority of people wishing otherwise.

Two major issues with getting a solid, legitimate sample size through polling:

1) "The Self-Identification Problem - Comparing the US Census data for self-identified Native Americans with the numbers of enrolled tribal citizens, 40% of those who claim to be Native American have no support for that claim."

2) "Use of Landlines - Only 53% of Native Americans had a land-line in 2005, so almost half of the target population was excluded from the sampling process." - not sure what the numbers are now, but the there is a definite deficit with regards to telephone access when compared to other ethnic groups in the US.

As such, conducting a poll that keeps these issues in mind would likely be expensive since it would have to either be done in person, or through mailers (low response rate). Who would pay for that?

That said, that list has a significant amount of Native American groups and Organizations which represent the majority of Native Americans. Are you stating that most of those groups do not, in actually, represent the major views of their constituents? If it was maybe only a handful of groups, you might have a point.

I also pointed to a recent study published in 2014 that stated:

The Redskins team name is a racial or racist word and symbol.
American Indians were 67 % in agreement, 12 % were neutral and 20 % disagreed with the statement.

http://cips.csusb.edu/docs/PressRelease.pdf

All previous polls are 10 years or older, and have been noted to have major issues with their methodology.


EDIT

I guess California State University actually would pay for such a survey! Just noticed this about it:

The Center's Principal Investigator, Professor James Fenelon, oversaw the collection of over 400 surveys directly from individuals who could be verified as being the race or ethnic group they claimed (important for self-identified Native Americans).

 

[genjiZERO]

Here's a simple test. Call an American Indian a redskin and see if their opinion of your changes for the less. The same applies to all the other words a small portion of white americans seem to be very bothered they can't use as nouns for minorities.

I call lots of my friends 'mother fucker' and 'son of a bitch' but I sure as hell do not expect the random person I interact with to be ok if I start referring to them as 'you son of a bitch.' It's called being polite, not some tyranny of political correctness.

Where's the line on offensive. Should a WNBA team that sets up shop in Miami be called Bitches in Heat?

That test only proves that people dislike the term not that it has actual negative meaning.

"Bitches" is per se derogatory because, in this context, it has no meaning outside a pejorative one.

So you're just arguing to argue then.

No, I'm trying to find real evidence that the term has a specific pejorative connotation because thats how the issue is being framed. The inaccuracy cheapens the discussion.

 

[User 100115]

No, I'm trying to find real evidence that the term has a specific pejorative connotation because thats how the issue is being framed. The inaccuracy cheapens the discussion.

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=115867415&postcount=91

But no, lets continue to pretend it's not a slur, even though the majority of the people it targets find it offensive, because the majority of the population who isn't the target of said slur say so.

 

[cyclonekruse]

I mean, in the absence of some kind of National Offended Index, that's really all this discussion is seeking to do. People are arguing that the line is at different levels. For what it's worth, what do you think is an acceptable level of offended people? 25%? 49%?

For something like this? I'd say closer to the 25% mark, though that's a gut reaction based on next to nothing. Pragmatically speaking, at some point, it just doesn't make business sense anymore and the positive PR (and sales that come with it) outweigh any other considerations. On the other hand, if it's a relative low percentage, then hopefully people who get offended will eventually diminish in number and the word can transition from a perceived racial slur to just a term for a football team that's loosely based off of a historical group of fierce fighters. Kind of in the way the Vikings are seen as acceptable even though there are a lot of parallels between how Vikings were viewed as barbarians and savages until somewhat recently.

Whether people get "offended" by it isn't even really relevant to me, it sucks because it's planted a flag of pride on a history of genocide. It's a dingus making a stand for ignorance and revisionist history.

Or it could be celebrating the fierce competitiveness and tenacity of the people in question (even though we killed scores of thousands of them). I think that's what the organization's PR people might say to spin it, at any rate.

Or we could stop using people's ethnicity as a mascot, let alone a slur?

It's not that difficult.

It's only a slur if people use it as such or if people get offended. Calling someone "black" could have easily gone down the same road. In fact, I've heard people spew as much hatred and vitriol into "black people" as 20 n-words. Words only have the power and force that we give them.

That said, that list has a significant amount of Native American groups and Organizations which represent the majority of Native Americans. Are you stating that most of those groups do not, in actually, represent the major views of their constituents? If it was maybe only a handful of groups, you might have a point.

I am making no statement either way. What I am stating is that listing off a slew of organizations who oppose something doesn't necessarily imply that all or most of their constituents agree with the official viewpoint. I've had several jobs where the managers' decisions were not supported by the majority of staff. You've given strong evidence that the higher-ups in those groups oppose the name's use, but it's not as strong if you try to generalize it out to the rest of the population.

I also pointed to a recent study published in 2014 that stated:

http://cips.csusb.edu/docs/PressRelease.pdf

All previous polls are 10 years or older, and have been noted to have major issues with their methodology.

That's better. However, I wouldn't be so quick to brush off the results from older polls. Methodology issues are pertinent, but I don't think being older is a knock on them. Perhaps it points to a shift in opinion among the population over the last decade. That would be really interesting. If that were the case, I wonder what would have caused the shift from most Natives viewing the term as a benign one to most viewing it as a malicious one.

 

[genjiZERO]

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=115867415&postcount=91

But no, lets continue to pretend it's not a slur, even though the majority of the people it targets find it offensive, because the majority of the population who isn't the target of said slur say so.

Well, I'm going in circles, so for the last time, and I'll never click on this thread again, just because people are offended by a term doesn't mean the term is necessarily a slur. That's very basic deductive logic.

In order to be a slur it has to have inherent derogatory meaning (wetback, bitch, darky) or acquire it through historical usage (the n-word). Since the words "red", "skin" or "red skin" have no inherent derogatory meaning they must have acquired it through use. From the reading I've done it appears the terms acquired a slur status simply because people said it did and not because it was used as a slur or to oppress people (as the n-word was and is).

If anyone has links to the history of the term being used as a slur or as a method of oppressing a people please PM me. Prove that it's a slur. Stating it as a fact, showing that people are offended by it and making unequal analogies doesn't prove this.

 

[cyclonekruse]

But no, lets continue to pretend it's not a slur, even though the majority of the people it targets find it offensive, because the majority of the population who isn't the target of said slur say so.

"Target" implies intentionality. I think that's a problematic assumption. As far as I can tell, the team name isn't really directed "at" Native Americans. It's more simply "about" Native Americans. It seems more tangential.

It might be related to the phenomenon of people who call others "faggots" but "would never call a gay person a faggot." They aren't "targeting" gay people. In fact, they say the never would do such a thing. However, there's possibly an oblique reference there.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

"Target" implies intentionality. I think that's a problematic assumption. As far as I can tell, the team name isn't really directed "at" Native Americans. It's more simply "about" Native Americans. It seems more tangential.

It might be related to the phenomenon of people who call others "faggots" but "would never call a gay person a faggot." They aren't "targeting" gay people. In fact, they say the never would do such a thing. However, there's possibly an oblique reference there.

Well, I'm going in circles, so for the last time, and I'll never click on this thread again, just because people are offended by a term doesn't mean the term is necessarily a slur. That's very basic deductive logic.

In order to be a slur it has to have inherent derogatory meaning (wetback, bitch, darky) or acquire it through historical usage (the n-word). Since the words "red", "skin" or "red skin" have no inherent derogatory meaning they must have acquired it through use. From the reading I've done it appears the terms acquired a slur status simply because people said it did and not because it was used as a slur or to oppress people (as the n-word was and is).

If anyone has links to the history of the term being used as a slur or as a method of oppressing a people please PM me. Prove that it's a slur. Stating it as a fact, showing that people are offended by it and making unequal analogies doesn't prove this.

Are these real posts and arguments? They'res an awful lot of excuse making and deflection

 

[User 100115]

Well, I'm going in circles, so for the last time, and I'll never click on this thread again, just because people are offended by a term doesn't mean the term is necessarily a slur. That's very basic deductive logic.

In order to be a slur it has to have inherent derogatory meaning (wetback, bitch, darky) or acquire it through historical usage (the n-word). Since the words "red", "skin" or "red skin" have no inherent derogatory meaning they must have acquired it through use. From the reading I've done it appears the terms acquired a slur status simply because people said it did and not because it was used as a slur or to oppress people (as the n-word was and is).

If anyone has links to the history of the term being used as a slur or as a method of oppressing a people please PM me. Prove that it's a slur. Stating it as a fact, showing that people are offended by it and making unequal analogies doesn't prove this.

Erm, I've been called a 'redskin' in a mean way before. Though most people mistake me for spanish and call me slurs for mexicans and the like, yeah, I've heard it used in a derogatory way.

I don't understand how something being offensive to the majority of people it's targeted at has to also prove a 'history' of it being offensive.

"Target" implies intentionality. I think that's a problematic assumption. As far as I can tell, the team name isn't really directed "at" Native Americans. It's more simply "about" Native Americans. It seems more tangential.

It might be related to the phenomenon of people who call others "faggots" but "would never call a gay person a faggot." They aren't "targeting" gay people. In fact, they say the never would do such a thing. However, there's possibly an oblique reference there.

I don't understand this at all. Are you saying that redskin is simply a descriptive term for Native Americans?