Palefaces: Redskins' Name OK

Status
Not open for further replies.

( . ) ( . ) and (_!_)

T&A
SoSH Member
Feb 9, 2010
5,302
Providence, RI
Wait, so you are waiting for someone to tell you why you should be offended by something that you have closely examined and found not offensive?

You do know that it is alright to not be offended by everything? Even If it sometimes offends some people. It does not make you a bad person.
 

Spacemans Bong

chapeau rose
SoSH Member
Are there ANY Irish people who are truly offended by the Fighting Irish leprechaun?
 
I mean, most Irish people (actually Irish) I know who like college football are Notre Dame fans. Most Irish-Americans I know are Notre Dame fans, unless they went to another D1 school like OFT. None of them are offended.
 
Even in historical context, by 1927 (which is when ND officially became the Fighting Irish) the Irish had been pretty well assimilated into most of America. We were a year away from Al Smith and accusations of being the pope's agent in Washington, which was pretty bad, but that was mostly from areas without a lot of Catholic Irish-Americans. Smith won all of America's largest cities, which is where the Irish were, and the Irish at that time had placed at least one mayor in most of 'em, and taken over the police department, fire department and much of the civil service.
 

dbn

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 10, 2007
7,785
La Mancha.
( . ) ( . ) and (_!_) said:
Wait, so you are waiting for someone to tell you why you should be offended by something that you have closely examined and found not offensive?

You do know that it is alright to not be offended by everything? Even If it sometimes offends some people. It does not make you a bad person.
 
Yeah, I guess that I was more inebriated than I thought and was overcompensating my not wanting to come across like a drunken aggressive... um... you know what.  
 

Leather

given himself a skunk spot
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
28,451
Right.  And in 1933, when the name was changed to Redskins, the world was not even a generation removed from the widespread and accepted notion that Darwinism explained the various superiority of the white races over the "others" such as Native Americans.  See, for example, the Chicago World's Fair and Exhibition, where the organizers had a "human zoo" and other exhibits designed to demonstrate white evolutionary superiority. 
 
It was in 1896.  In Chicago.
 
I mean, a lot of people still believed in that shit in 1933.   It seems ridiculous and impossibly backward now, but that was the environment in which someone thought naming a football team "The Redskins" was ok.
 

Kenny F'ing Powers

posts way less than 18% useful shit
SoSH Member
Nov 17, 2010
14,425
dbn said:
Yeah, I guess that I was more inebriated than I thought and was overcompensating my not wanting to come across like a drunken aggressive... um... you know what.  
 
You sure you're not Irish?
 

Awesome Fossum

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 20, 2005
3,894
Austin, TX
Paul Woody, a Richmond-Times Dispatch columnist who thinks the name should be changed, asked the chiefs of three Virginia tribes for their opinion. They aren't too worked up about it.
 
“It doesn’t bother me,” said Robert Green, 66 and chief of the Patawomeck Tribe in Virginia. “About 98 percent of my tribe is Redskins fans, and it doesn’t offend them, either.”

Kevin Brown, 58 and chief of the Pamunkey Tribe of Virginia, said, “I’m a Redskins fan, and I don’t think there’s any intention for (the nickname) to be derogatory. The majority of the people in my tribe don’t have a problem with it. There are a few who do, and we respect their feelings.

“I like the uniforms. I like the symbol (logo).”

G. Anne Richardson, chief of Virginia’s Rappahannock Tribe, had to stifle a laugh when asked her feelings on the Redskins’ nickname.

“I don’t have an issue with it,” she said. “There are so many more issues that are important for the tribe than to waste time on what a team is called. We’re worried about real things, and I don’t consider that a real thing.

“We’re more worried about our kids being educated, our people housed, elder care and the survival of our culture. We’ve been in that survival mode for 400 years. We’re not worried about how some ball team is named.”
 
In a semi-related note, none of Virginia's tribes are federally recognized (this is also true of Washington, D.C. and Maryland). If my memory is serving me correctly, the NCAA said this disqualified any Virginia tribe from supporting The College of William & Mary's use of American Indian imagery in their logo (a feather).
 

Old Fart Tree

the maven of meat
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 10, 2001
14,028
Boulder, CO
Spacemans Bong said:
Are there ANY Irish people who are truly offended by the Fighting Irish leprechaun?
 
I mean, most Irish people (actually Irish) I know who like college football are Notre Dame fans. Most Irish-Americans I know are Notre Dame fans, unless they went to another D1 school like OFT. None of them are offended.
Yes. I am one of them. My dad is another. He went to Manhattan College, not exactly a football powerhouse. And I thought the ND logo was offensive long before I entertained any ideas about going to a D1 school.
 

Leather

given himself a skunk spot
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
28,451
Awesome Fossum said:
Paul Woody, a Richmond-Times Dispatch columnist who thinks the name should be changed, asked the chiefs of three Virginia tribes for their opinion. They aren't too worked up about it.
 
 
In a semi-related note, none of Virginia's tribes are federally recognized (this is also true of Washington, D.C. and Maryland). If my memory is serving me correctly, the NCAA said this disqualified any Virginia tribe from supporting The College of William & Mary's use of American Indian imagery in their logo (a feather).
 
I recoil at the notion that the burden should be on those seeking to change the name to prove its inherent offensiveness.    In this particular case, the name is prima facie racist and, frankly, derogatory.  It's not like The Chiefs, or even The Braves, which are semi-generic and clearly reference positive stereotypes of Native Americans. 
 

SMU_Sox

queer eye for the next pats guy
SoSH Member
Jul 20, 2009
8,878
Dallas
Hey, doc, I was talking to a few Mexican workers on the corner of Coit and Forest here in Dallas. I asked them if the name of our USL team, the Wetbacks, offended them. These eses indicated that they were completely ok with it. You know what? I guess it isn't racist! Let's use the name in all sports settings. It might make a perfect youth soccer name in San Antonio.
 
Ok - we all see how that logic sucks, right?
 

Awesome Fossum

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 20, 2005
3,894
Austin, TX
drleather2001 said:
I recoil at the notion that the burden should be on those seeking to change the name to prove its inherent offensiveness.
 
Right or wrong, isn't it a matter of reality that the burden of proof is always on those seeking change?
 

cromulence

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 25, 2009
6,699
Awesome Fossum said:
 
Right or wrong, isn't it a matter of reality that the burden of proof is always on those seeking change?
 
Burden of proof? This is so fucking stupid. "Prove to me that Redskin is a racial slur! Please show your work."
 

moondog80

heart is two sizes two small
SoSH Member
Sep 20, 2005
8,094
SMU_Sox said:
Hey, doc, I was talking to a few Mexican workers on the corner of Coit and Forest here in Dallas. I asked them if the name of our USL team, the Wetbacks, offended them. These eses indicated that they were completely ok with it. You know what? I guess it isn't racist! Let's use the name in all sports settings. It might make a perfect youth soccer name in San Antonio.
 
Ok - we all see how that logic sucks, right?
 I'm fine with changing the team name, but this is a poor analogy.  They didn't ask some guys hanging on the corner, they asked tribal leaders.  That's not "case closed", but it does carry a little weight.
 

SMU_Sox

queer eye for the next pats guy
SoSH Member
Jul 20, 2009
8,878
Dallas
Poor analogy? It's comedy. 
 
Look, if you need someone to explain why/how/if/etc. the term Redskin is or is not racist you have more issues than missing the point of my post. I don't like confrontation but this thread is getting ridiculous. Prima-fucking-facie racist. 
 

Awesome Fossum

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 20, 2005
3,894
Austin, TX
cromulence said:
Burden of proof? This is so fucking stupid. "Prove to me that Redskin is a racial slur! Please show your work."
My God, it's like "The Meaning of July Fourth for the Negro" all over again. Bravo.

Do we just want to be right, or do we want the name changed?
 

Leather

given himself a skunk spot
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
28,451
Ultimately, changing the name is an ethical issue.   To say that "Well, sure if offends a bunch of people, but these particular people aren't offended, so it must be ok!"  is to miss the point, entirely.  It's not a good defense because it doesn't address the fact that the name is still inherently offensive.
 

SMU_Sox

queer eye for the next pats guy
SoSH Member
Jul 20, 2009
8,878
Dallas
It feels like this thread has run its course. Perhaps someone can just lock it?
 

Hendoo

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 29, 2004
2,034
the stinkin desert
Interesting fact, Mike Shanahan was once an assistant coach at Northern Arizona University, a University with an enrollment of Native Americans that is one of the largest in the country.
 

bankshot1

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 12, 2003
24,652
where I was last at
Are there ANY Irish people who are truly offended by the Fighting Irish leprechaun?
 I just read about leprechauns:  
 
leprechaun (Irishleipreachán) is a type of fairy in Irish folklore, usually taking the form of an old man, clad in a red or green coat, who enjoys partaking in mischief.
 
So rather than tarnish the reputation of the Irish, and in keeping with ND tradition, perhaps ND might consider renaming the team, The Fighting Fairies.
 

baruch20

New Member
Jul 31, 2006
226
North Shore

Old Fart Tree

the maven of meat
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 10, 2001
14,028
Boulder, CO

Section15Box113

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 16, 2005
8,914
Inside Lou Gorman's Head
Michael Tomasky piece posted today picks up the drumbeat.
 
The sad thing is [Snyder] has an opportunity to be a visionary here. He can embrace a future that is inevitable anyway and help settle some important historical accounts while doing so. He could say something like: “We all know that while George Preston Marshall did great things for this city and this franchise, his racial legacy is not something we can be proud of. The name Redskins is, alas, part of that legacy. I therefore have decided…” He could turn it into a contest, letting fans submit and vote for a new name. It could happen over two or three years, so people would have a chance to get used to it, work through the five stages of nickname grief. And I’m quite sure it has already dawned on him that he could one day be selling two different kinds of apparel.

 
Until that day, he and his team are a national embarrassment, an embarrassment that will only increase as time passes. Fail to the Redskins.
 
 
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/06/01/the-racist-redskins.html
 

ZP1

New Member
Jul 15, 2005
194
Old Fart Tree said:
 
My Dad's side of the family is about as Irish as you get - right down to my great grandparents on that side speaking Gaelic.  And I have to say, I have zero issues with the ND mascot. Why?  Because racism against the Irish has long, long stopped being a thing in America.   
 
Seriously, the examples you're bringing up go back to the late 1800s/early 1900s, when Irish stereotypes actually represented real oppression against a group of people.   Symbols like drunken leprechauns simply aren't symbols of hate and discrimination anymore - why treat them as such?   Tell me, should the large Scandinavian population in Minnesota be furious at this guy? - 
 

 
 
No one cares about poking fun and stereotyping Scandinavian folklore for much of the same reasons why no one gives a shit about Irish stereotyping - because neither group faces discrimination on any level today.  
 

Tony C

Moderator
Moderator
SoSH Member
Apr 13, 2000
13,694
simplyeric said:
We should re-name the thread.
 
just poked in this thread to see how on earth it could still be getting posts. no answer to that (except that people like to pontificate -- no news there), but this was, indeed, an awesome post so made it worthwhile all the same.
 

Old Fart Tree

the maven of meat
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 10, 2001
14,028
Boulder, CO
ZP1 said:
 
My Dad's side of the family is about as Irish as you get - right down to my great grandparents on that side speaking Gaelic.  And I have to say, I have zero issues with the ND mascot. Why?  Because racism against the Irish has long, long stopped being a thing in America.   
 
Seriously, the examples you're bringing up go back to the late 1800s/early 1900s, when Irish stereotypes actually represented real oppression against a group of people.   Symbols like drunken leprechauns simply aren't symbols of hate and discrimination anymore - why treat them as such?   Tell me, should the large Scandinavian population in Minnesota be furious at this guy? - 
 

 
 
No one cares about poking fun and stereotyping Scandinavian folklore for much of the same reasons why no one gives a shit about Irish stereotyping - because neither group faces discrimination on any level today.  
I'm glad we have you here to tell us what we should or should not find offensive, and which offensive stereotypes have, like whores, grown respectable with age. Irish: old enough, got it. Just for my bookkeeping, where are Jews? Armenians? Asians? Is there some sort of algorithm you use based on time elapsed, degree of offensiveness, and prevalence of the stereotype to make your go/no go decision?
 

Gunfighter 09

wants to be caribou ken
Moderator
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2005
8,548
KPWT

 
 
This isn't bad. I think just the plane needs to be silver with a red tail, on the burgundy & gold background. I guess I would also prefer the P-51 in an aggressive dive, rather than just straight and level.

I don't think you can go wrong in a majority African American city honoring the Tuskeegee airman, who can never be over memorialized or over recognized.  
 

ZP1

New Member
Jul 15, 2005
194
Old Fart Tree said:
I'm glad we have you here to tell us what we should or should not find offensive, and which offensive stereotypes have, like whores, grown respectable with age. Irish: old enough, got it. Just for my bookkeeping, where are Jews? Armenians? Asians? Is there some sort of algorithm you use based on time elapsed, degree of offensiveness, and prevalence of the stereotype to make your go/no go decision?
 
 
Are you really this dense? Groups like Jews/Asians still face active discrimination from a variety of groups in society. Something that people with Irish or Scandinavian backgrounds simply don't deal with today. If your symbol can be linked to and used as a vehicle for racial discrimination that's already going on, it's probably not ok.  No one discriminates against the Irish in 2013 America, which consequently means that no one gives a shit about a drunken leprechaun as a mascot.  
 

SMU_Sox

queer eye for the next pats guy
SoSH Member
Jul 20, 2009
8,878
Dallas
Lock this thread. This is ridiculous already. Either that or use it as a litmus test for whether or not to ban posters.
 

Old Fart Tree

the maven of meat
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 10, 2001
14,028
Boulder, CO
ZP1 said:
 
 
Are you really this dense? Groups like Jews/Asians still face active discrimination from a variety of groups in society. Something that people with Irish or Scandinavian backgrounds simply don't deal with today. If your symbol can be linked to and used as a vehicle for racial discrimination that's already going on, it's probably not ok.  No one discriminates against the Irish in 2013 America, which consequently means that no one gives a shit about a drunken leprechaun as a mascot.  
Compared to you, I am that dense. I seem to lack the luxuries you enjoy of boundless cognition and a singularity of perspective, which together allow you to dictate a binary evaluation of what is and what is not offensive, and what The People collectively do or do not give a shit about. So yeah, I'm not nearly as fucking smart as you are.
 

Marciano490

Urological Expert
SoSH Member
Nov 4, 2007
62,312
Gunfighter 09 said:

 
 
This isn't bad. I think just the plane needs to be silver with a red tail, on the burgundy & gold background. I guess I would also prefer the P-51 in an aggressive dive, rather than just straight and level.

I don't think you can go wrong in a majority African American city honoring the Tuskeegee airman, who can never be over memorialized or over recognized.  
 
I agree that an aggressive dive is the proper posture for Washington's logo.
 
 
ZP1 said:
Are you really this dense? Groups like Jews/Asians still face active discrimination from a variety of groups in society. Something that people with Irish or Scandinavian backgrounds simply don't deal with today. If your symbol can be linked to and used as a vehicle for racial discrimination that's already going on, it's probably not ok.  No one discriminates against the Irish in 2013 America, which consequently means that no one gives a shit about a drunken leprechaun as a mascot.  
 
You get the difference between a Viking and a Scandanavian, right? You're not going to start talking about USC's mascot and Turks are you?  And, for my own edification, can you explain the different forms of active discrimination Jews and Asians face that Irish (or should I say Celts) face?
 

Leather

given himself a skunk spot
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
28,451
Wait. Vikings are Scandinavian.

But the Viking isn't offensive because its not exaggerating negative stereotypes of Scandinavians. If it were, it would be wearing an ugly sweater and eating a hot dish.
 

JimBoSox9

will you be my friend?
SoSH Member
Nov 1, 2005
16,667
Mid-surburbia
This isn't bad. I think just the plane needs to be silver with a red tail, on the burgundy & gold background. I guess I would also prefer the P-51 in an aggressive dive, rather than just straight and level.


I don't think you can go wrong in a majority African American city honoring the Tuskeegee airman, who can never be over memorialized or over recognized.


I agree that an aggressive dive is the proper posture for Washington's logo.


Are you really this dense? Groups like Jews/Asians still face active discrimination from a variety of groups in society. Something that people with Irish or Scandinavian backgrounds simply don't deal with today. If your symbol can be linked to and used as a vehicle for racial discrimination that's already going on, it's probably not ok. No one discriminates against the Irish in 2013 America, which consequently means that no one gives a shit about a drunken leprechaun as a mascot.


You get the difference between a Viking and a Scandanavian, right? You're not going to start talking about USC's mascot and Turks are you?


Well, we got diverted talking about leprechauns and Irish, so..ya, I think he is.
 

Marciano490

Urological Expert
SoSH Member
Nov 4, 2007
62,312
drleather2001 said:
Wait. Vikings are Scandinavian.

But the Viking isn't offensive because its not exaggerating negative stereotypes of Scandinavians. If it were, it would be wearing an ugly sweater and eating a hot dish.
 
No, I get that.  It's just when people ask my heritage, I don't say Magyar and Goth, and I've never heard an Italian say they were Roman (as in the empire) or Etruscan.  To me, there's a huge difference between the Viking mascot vis a vis Scandinavians and the Redskins and Indians mascots.  There's probably a big difference between having Aztecs as your mascot and having Fighting Sioux, but I don't think there's a definitive chart out there anywhere. 
 
If any character is racist against Scandinavians, it's that rascally chef from the Muppets.
 

Leather

given himself a skunk spot
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
28,451
Marciano490 said:
No, I get that.  It's just when people ask my heritage, I don't say Magyar and Goth, and I've never heard an Italian say they were Roman (as in the empire) or Etruscan.  To me, there's a huge difference between the Viking mascot vis a vis Scandinavians and the Redskins and Indians mascots.  There's probably a big difference between having Aztecs as your mascot and having Fighting Sioux, but I don't think there's a definitive chart out there anywhere. 
 
If any character is racist against Scandinavians, it's that rascally chef from the Muppets.
 
Oh ok.  I think we are in aggreance (as Fred Durst would say).
 
I misunderstood your point vis a vis the Viking, and thought you were continuing the same odd error that originated in the 2nd Best Country thread, wherein several posters seemed to think that Vikings only came from Denmark.  And that's only relevant insofar as Minnesota has a huge Norwegian heritage.  
 
In short, nevermind.
 

Marciano490

Urological Expert
SoSH Member
Nov 4, 2007
62,312
drleather2001 said:
Oh ok.  I think we are in aggreance (as Fred Durst would say).
 
I misunderstood your point vis a vis the Viking, and thought you were continuing the same odd error that originated in the 2nd Best Country thread, wherein several posters seemed to think that Vikings only came from Denmark.  And that's only relevant insofar as Minnesota has a huge Norwegian heritage.  
 
In short, nevermind.
 
 
 
Surely, Valhalla will be shut to them all, and may Fafnir chew on their bones.
 
I've been a huge fan of Vikings since I read Njal's Saga.  Hamsun, Ibsen, Sibelius, Norse death metal, there's a whole lot of awesome coming out of Scandinavia. 
 

mascho

Kane is Able
SoSH Member
Nov 30, 2007
14,952
Silver Spring, Maryland
"For the team's millions of fans and customers..."
 
Rough translation:  People buy stuff with the Redskins logo/name.  They won't with another logo/name.  Step off.  
 

PBDWake

Member
SoSH Member
May 1, 2008
3,686
Peabody, MA
Oops;
http://deadspin.com/redskins-indian-chief-defender-not-a-chief-probably-590973565
 

Perhaps the high point of this came with the May 3 broadcast of the Snyder-produced TV show Redskins Nation. The program featured a guest introduced as Chief Dodson, who was described in a press release written up by the Redskins PR department after the taping as "a full-blooded American Inuit chief originally from the Aleutian Tribes of Alaska" who "represents more than 700 remaining tribe members."
...
Dodson added that all the Indians he knows are fine with "redskins" even in a non-football context.
"It's actually a term of endearment that we would refer to each other as," Dodson said. "When we were on the reservation, we'd call each other, 'Hey, what's up, redskin?' We'd nickname it and call each other 'Skins.' We respected each other with that term. … It's not degrading in one bit."
...
It turns out that the "full-blooded American Inuit chief" is neither a full-blooded American Inuit nor a chief in any formal sense of the term.
...
What of Dodson's contention that Aleuts and/or Inuits regularly use "redskin" as a term of endearment? "I have never called anybody 'redskin,'" Eningowuk said. "Nobody I know has ever called me 'redskin.' I have never heard any Inuit call somebody 'redskin.'"
Guess that one didn't go as planned.
 

Baby Got Daubach

New Member
Apr 23, 2010
47
Not to be obvious but I think I can come up with another racial slur that was re-appropriated as a term of endearment by the people it describes that I wouldn't exactly be comfortable calling my football team.  The point is moot since the whole thing was a lie, but even if that was true I don't think it justifies anything.  It's so ridiculous that it almost reads like an Onion article.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.