WTF Supreme count might make the Redskins change their name.

Reply

kevlar51 replied on 09-17-2009 6:18 PM

rated by 0 users

Decrypded:

Maskim:

Once again, the term 'redskin' has lost the negative connotations you are associating with it, over time.

It's not like we're talking about the Washington Scalping Murderous Savages, here.  If they were the Savages, or something insulting, I might take offense.  However, being the redskins, is not insulting.  It's not demeaning.  It's not racist. 

At one time, yes.  But not anymore.

I don't buy that. The ever-prevalent N word isn't directly using insulting words, but it is incredibly insulting. It doesn't have to be equivalent to "savage," because in and of itself it is demeaning.

Just because you don't have a problem with it, doesn't mean others don't.

I don't say this often, but I pretty much agree fully with Hexpane - except for the fact that racism isn't limited to people in power.

I'm not personally insulted by their name, but if it were changed I would have no problem with it. Then again, I'm not a fan of theirs and DC sucks.

Here I am nodding my head, nodding my head, nodding my head and then BAM! Decrypded's a dick.

Reply

Maskim replied on 09-17-2009 6:19 PM

rated by 0 users

Decrypded:

Maskim:

Once again, the term 'redskin' has lost the negative connotations you are associating with it, over time.

It's not like we're talking about the Washington Scalping Murderous Savages, here.  If they were the Savages, or something insulting, I might take offense.  However, being the redskins, is not insulting.  It's not demeaning.  It's not racist. 

At one time, yes.  But not anymore.

I don't buy that. The ever-prevalent N word isn't directly using insulting words, but it is incredibly insulting. It doesn't have to be equivalent to "savage," because in and of itself it is demeaning.

Just because you don't have a problem with it, doesn't mean others don't.

I don't say this often, but I pretty much agree fully with Hexpane - except for the fact that racism isn't limited to people in power.

I'm not personally insulted by their name, but if it were changed I would have no problem with it. Then again, I'm not a fan of theirs and DC sucks.

A couple things.  You're right, that just because I don't find it offensive doesn't mean everyone doesn't find it offensive.  However, by the stats someone posted earlier, it would appear that most native americans take no offense at the term.  To the contrary, it would appear (I don't have proof to back this statement up, just an observation, hence my saying it would appear, instead of claiming it to be fact) that the majority of those who think it is an atrocious term, are those it does not affect.

This goes back to something I had mentioned earlier.  It seems a lot of this is based upon a subconscious level of guilt.  Whether or not your great great grand parents did something to demean another group of people, you never did.  As long as you remember the lessons of the past and don't repeat them, then why should anyone be bound by the mistakes of their ancestors?

Secondly, Hexpane is right on his definition of racism.  Technically, it is the race in power committing it against others.  As such, even though it certainly happens, reverse racism, by technicality, does not exist.

Hexpane brings up a lot of good points, and has a sound argument, I just don't agree with his assessment of this particular situation.

Reply

Hexpane replied on 09-17-2009 6:21 PM

rated by 0 users

Decrypded:

I don't buy that. The ever-prevalent N word isn't directly using insulting words, but it is incredibly insulting. It doesn't have to be equivalent to "savage," because in and of itself it is demeaning.

Just because you don't have a problem with it, doesn't mean others don't.

I don't say this often, but I pretty much agree fully with Hexpane - except for the fact that racism isn't limited to people in power.

I'm not personally insulted by their name, but if it were changed I would have no problem with it. Then again, I'm not a fan of theirs and DC sucks.

Excellent points, I was surprised that someone would use the argument that "it's not racist anymore" even tho I specifically mentioned that we just *forget* it's racist because the only time we see it is watching NFL games.

The N word is the perfect example.  People use it all the time not intending to be racist, but you'd never see it on a pro sports team's name.  Just because over time some culture groups have usurped it, does not mean it loses it's racist history.

We just forget, again I point to the "I got gypped" - gypsy example.  99/100 people who use that phrase have no idea it started as a racist term against gypsies.

mafafu:

It is like you were born in California Hexpane.

I live here now, but only for the past 9 years.  :)  While I may "sound" California in my posts.   If you met me in real life, you wouldn't think I was born here.  There is something about people born in raised in Cali, they fit into broad stereotypes

Crunchy

Surfer

West Coast Gangsta

Pick up truck/mustache gun nut

Rich hollywood types and reality celebs

I was born and raised East Coast, in the harsh winters and horrid summers .  My favorite sports teams all have terrible names like "The Red Sox"   ...

Reply

kevlar51 replied on 09-17-2009 6:28 PM

rated by 0 users

Maskim:

This goes back to something I had mentioned earlier.  It seems a lot of this is based upon a subconscious level of guilt.  Whether or not your great great grand parents did something to demean another group of people, you never did.  As long as you remember the lessons of the past and don't repeat them, then why should anyone be bound by the mistakes of their ancestors?

Part of my confusion still surrounds your gypped/Redskins distinction. Neither are words that people use today out of hatred for the group of people from which it's derived. The slang term "gypped" has made its way into every day vocabulary, and you admit you are against its use. But the term "Redskins" in this context is a proper noun, and its use relies on a trademark from which others profit; you're fine with that.

Reply

Decrypded replied on 09-17-2009 6:30 PM

rated by 0 users

Maskim:

A couple things.  You're right, that just because I don't find it offensive doesn't mean everyone doesn't find it offensive.  However, by the stats someone posted earlier, it would appear that most native americans take no offense at the term.  To the contrary, it would appear (I don't have proof to back this statement up, just an observation, hence my saying it would appear, instead of claiming it to be fact) that the majority of those who think it is an atrocious term, are those it does not affect.

I get what you're saying. I didn't read the whole thread, didn't know there were stats about it but that's interesting.

I understand your point though - like I said, I'm personally not offended either way it goes.

kevlar51:

Here I am nodding my head, nodding my head, nodding my head and then BAM! Decrypded's a dick.

Why? Because I don't like the Redskins and DC isn't the best place to live?
It is sad when the Capital of a nation has some of the worst poverty.

Reply

kevlar51 replied on 09-17-2009 6:31 PM

rated by 0 users

Hexpane:

My favorite sports teams all have terrible names like "The Red Sox" 

Good point ... Red Sox, White Sox, Reds, Browns, GT Yellow Jackets ... they've all got to go.

Reply

Maskim replied on 09-17-2009 6:35 PM

rated by 0 users

kevlar51:

 

Part of my confusion still surrounds your gypped/Redskins distinction. Neither are words that people use today out of hatred for the group of people from which it's derived. The slang term "gypped" has made its way into every day vocabulary, and you admit you are against its use. But the term "Redskins" in this context is a proper noun, and its use relies on a trademark from which others profit; you're fine with that.

It's about understanding the historical significance of it.  If someone knows the origins of the word, and feels that it is an ok word to use, then that is fine.  If someone knows the historical significance of the word, and feels it is inappropriate, that too is just fine.  If someone doesn't even know what they're saying, but uses the term like it's going out of style, that is what I find irritating.

My beef is not with the word, or it's use.  My beef is with ignorance.

Reply

neebles replied on 09-17-2009 6:36 PM

rated by 0 users

Just to add my 2 cents, I am a good part native american, enough to have my "number" which I find greatly more offensive then a professional sports team being called the Redskins...Most of my family are huge football fans, and my Uncle, who is more Native American then me lives in DC and is a hugs Skins fan, does he give a shit, nope.....

Reply

Decrypded replied on 09-17-2009 6:36 PM

rated by 0 users

Maskim:

My beef is not with the word, or it's use.  My beef is with ignorance.

Reply

Hexpane replied on 09-17-2009 6:40 PM

rated by 0 users

Maskim:

Secondly, Hexpane is right on his definition of racism.  Technically, it is the race in power committing it against others.  As such, even though it certainly happens, reverse racism, by technicality, does not exist.

Hexpane brings up a lot of good points, and has a sound argument, I just don't agree with his assessment of this particular situation.

I have a feeling that your argument is one the Supreme Court would more likely agree with.  Because in effect, "who is this negatively affecting" is a strong legal case to have things thrown out.  Native americans will have to prove that they are being actively affected by the Redskins.

I'm glad someone else picked up on the "person in power" idea w/ racism.  Racism only works in one direction, top down.  But there can be "reverse discrimination" which is a world of difference from racism.

 RD is an unfortunately side effect of trying to correct past wrongs.    Humans have a tough time reconciling our past. "What's done is done' is a cliche many people love to use, but it's a bad one that removes the lessons of history.

The guilt thing really isn't true, usually the most rich, powerful families are the last ones to take up causes like racism.  The poor people who did not have slaves or are self made rich, are usually more inclined towards social change.

It's in the interest of rich "old money" families to maintain status quo.

Reply

Hexpane replied on 09-17-2009 6:41 PM

rated by 0 users

Decrypded:

Why? Because I don't like the Redskins and DC isn't the best place to live?
It is sad when the Capital of a nation has some of the worst poverty.

Yet D.C. has become the new "hot city" for young wealthy singles.   So that could change in 40 years perhaps.

Reply

Subjugate replied on 09-17-2009 6:52 PM

rated by 0 users

I don't feel like reading 8 pages, but if it makes it to the supreme court, I doubt it will even pass. When the supreme court decides on a verdict everyone in the USA has to follow it, as it is law (of course the other balance is they have no way to enforce it...but thats something else). If they passed it then any sports related naming that has any slight offensiveness to anyone would have to be removed, obviously losing any name with any historic names  spartans is one, they killed people, that is offensive, or cougars is another, it is an endangered species, playing sports making light of the name, offensive...

basically you could abuse this.

Reply

kevlar51 replied on 09-17-2009 7:26 PM

rated by 0 users

Hexpane:

I have a feeling that your argument is one the Supreme Court would more likely agree with.  Because in effect, "who is this negatively affecting" is a strong legal case to have things thrown out.  Native americans will have to prove that they are being actively affected by the Redskins.

Possibly. My guess this the Supreme Court will reject the case entirely--as they do with the vast vast majority of cases that come before them. If they do hear it, I wouldn't be surprised if they upheld the laches determination. It's kind of a tough one. But the decision-makers (Supreme Court, Congress, President, G-team) all love to avoid making decisions and pass the buck to the other branches of Gov't. Often times it's for the best, because the adage "clear rules make bad law" typically hold true. But all three branches far too often leave laws/rulings/regulations ambiguous so as to protect against unintended consequences, and end up neutering the purpose.