Anti-Redskins add to run during game 3 of NBA finals

[Red Slinger]

It seems to me the crux of the argument is whether or not the term "Redskins" is considered pejorative. Those that believe it is largely accept that the name should be changed. Those that believe it isn't don't.

Those that believe the term is pejorative and still don't think the name should be changed are simply not good people. Reasonable argument won't change their opinion.

[19Yzerman19]

Just for some context, at least the vast majority here is on the right side of this debate and are burning the dissident witch appropriately. I was reading this thread when I happened to check facebook, only to see this image:

Spoiler!

It was attached to a news post from a website on which I'm a moderator, accompanying an interview with a former Skullcandy guy who's gone on to found his own company, "Tomohawk International" which makes outerwear and other stuff. The site's 200,000 + membership demographic is younger - 14-30 years - and primarily based in the East, about 75% american members. You'd think the younger north eastern contingent would have a bit more racial sensitivity than other groups you might sample.

And I am having to explain to people, in detail, why that image is offensive and does not celebrate victorious indians or why it would only be racist if it was a white guy holding a native scalp.

FML.

It's not just Trumbull - apparently the United States is, in general, obtuse, tone deaf, and oblivious. It's hard not to get angry at that level of general stupidity. Be glad you live somewhere else.

[Trumbull]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

Ok, since I'm apparently not on your ignore list and you've now acknowledged the post in question, how about you address it?

I did address it, I said I see no point in answering such unrealistic scenarios and prefer to stay within the realm of reality.

[Trumbull]

Originally Posted by 19Yzerman19

Just for some context, at least the vast majority here is on the right side of this debate and are burning the dissident witch appropriately.

Well, we all know there's only one side to be on, and the rest be burned to the ground. It's science!

[19Yzerman19]

Originally Posted by Trumbull

Well, we all know there's only one side to be on, and the rest be burned to the ground. It's science!

Yeah, when it comes to racism, there's only one side to be on. Hint: it's the not racist one.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Trumbull

I did address it, I said I see no point in answering such unrealistic scenarios and prefer to stay within the realm of reality.

That ship sailed when you decided to argue your point by using an ad populum fallacy.

[Trumbull]

Originally Posted by 19Yzerman19

Yeah, when it comes to racism, there's only one side to be on. Hint: it's the not racist one.

If I had a dime every time I heard from such a movement that opposing views were racist. Guess it's easy to be on the winning side when you can straw man your opponent to being racist.

Originally Posted by rubecube

That ship sailed when you decided to argue your point by using an ad populum fallacy.

I've yet to see the "fallacy" part of that argument and no one has put forth any decent argument as to why the name needs to be banned/forcefully changed, especially within the context of the environment this all takes place in. Much like the gun issue, other Canadians tend to argue things in Canadian context with a distinct inability to consider the perspective of what they're disagreeing with.

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by Trumbull

I did address it, I said I see no point in answering such unrealistic scenarios and prefer to stay within the realm of reality.

No, that's what you said about this post from Maritime Q-Scout. You have yet to address this post from driveway where he points out that you were totally wrong about Obama having any sway over the Patent & Trademark Office's ruling in this case since all three presiding judges were appointed during the Bush administration.

Edit: I'll quote it again in full below for your convenience.

Originally Posted by driveway

The Trial Board, before which this case was argued, consists of 21 Federal Judges, appointed to the board by the Commerce Secretary.

source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tradema...d_Appeal_Board

The three particular judges in this case were Peter W. Cataldo, Karen Kuhulke, and Marc A. Bergsman.

source: http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?p...ty=CAN&eno=199

Cataldo and Bergsman were appointed in 2006, and Kuhulke in 2005 which make them Bush Administration appointees, you colossal idiot.

[Maritime Q-Scout]

Originally Posted by Trumbull

I did address it, I said I see no point in answering such unrealistic scenarios and prefer to stay within the realm of reality.

That's not true though. If that statement was true you wouldn't be arguing on a message board that has no control over the Washington Redskins organization.

Rather, you are so afraid to have logical fallacies pointed out that you won't attempt to use logic to convince others.

[19Yzerman19]

Originally Posted by Trumbull

If I had a dime every time I heard from such a movement that opposing views were racist. Guess it's easy to be on the winning side when you can straw man your opponent to being racist.

So you've heard this often? You've taken controversial positions widely viewed as racist on other issues? Huh. What a coincidence.

I've yet to see the "fallacy" part of that argument and no one has put forth any decent argument as to why the name needs to be banned/forcefully changed

As I said: tone deaf, obtuse, and oblivious.

Anyway, I don't understand why people are bothering to argue with you either given what you've put out there so far. Seems totally pointless.

[Maritime Q-Scout]

Originally Posted by Trumbull

If I had a dime every time I heard from such a movement that opposing views were racist. Guess it's easy to be on the winning side when you can straw man your opponent to being racist.


I've yet to see the "fallacy" part of that argument and no one has put forth any decent argument as to why the name needs to be banned/forcefully changed, especially within the context of the environment this all takes place in. Much like the gun issue, other Canadians tend to argue things in Canadian context with a distinct inability to consider the perspective of what they're disagreeing with.

So I'm clear, your argument is that using a racial slur isn't racist?

I'm honestly not trying to belittle you with that question, I'm legitiatmetly trying to understand your argument.

[Trumbull]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

No, that's what you said about this post from Maritime Q-Scout. You have yet to address this post from driveway where he points out that you were totally wrong about Obama having any sway over the Patent & Trademark Office's ruling in this case since all three presiding judges were appointed during the Bush administration.

Edit: I'll quote it again in full below for your convenience.

Ahh, the "you colossal idiot" post.

I suppose Ben Bernanke being appointed by Bush meant he would defy Obama right? I mean, because party matters and all when it comes to serving the sitting President? Except he not only complied with QE, he applauded Obama for it. How about George Tenet? He defied Bush so much when it came to Iraq propaganda, right? He was the martyr for truth because he was appointed by Clinton? Oh wait, no he wasn't.

Crappy argument is crap.

Originally Posted by Maritime Q-Scout

That's not true though. If that statement was true you wouldn't be arguing on a message board that has no control over the Washington Redskins organization.

Rather, you are so afraid to have logical fallacies pointed out that you won't attempt to use logic to convince others.

Yeah, I'm so scared of logical fallacies. I really need the validity of approval from people on a pixel message board to give myself self-esteem. Can someone please agree with me so this poster can have it right?

Originally Posted by Maritime Q-Scout

So I'm clear, your argument is that using a racial slur isn't racist?

I'm honestly not trying to belittle you with that question, I'm legitiatmetly trying to understand your argument.

First off, what a slur is depends on who believes it is. You think 70-85% of Americans are racist and have no problem with racism? Start with that before suggesting that people are inherently okay with racism.

[Trumbull]

Originally Posted by 19Yzerman19

So you've heard this often? You've taken controversial positions widely viewed as racist on other issues? Huh. What a coincidence.

As I said: tone deaf, obtuse, and oblivious.

Anyway, I don't understand why people are bothering to argue with you either given what you've put out there so far. Seems totally pointless.

People went out of their way all day long to suggest I'm another poster despite having no proof whatsoever. I would venture an educated guess they enjoy rather pointless endeavours.

[Maritime Q-Scout]

Ok I think I have some stuff to go on here. Trumbull from your arguments I believe this is how you'd answer the following questions based on your answers to this point. All of which are fair an legitimate answers:

1. If the NFL was expanding into a new market, let's say the Mississippi N*ggers. Would that be an acceptable team name?

Given modern sensitivities, a racial slur for a new team would be wildly inappropriate. You see what a slur is depends on who believes it is. Since the only context is racial then no it wouldn't be appropriate at all.

2. Would your opinion change if the Mississippi N*ggers had a century of tradition including three Super Bowl championships?

If people grew up with a sports franchise with a long and rich tradition that was unfortunately named the N*ggers, but when people referred to the team it was in the sense of sport and not the degradation of a race then the degradation loses it's meaning in context and therefore would be acceptable.

3. What if the Atlanta Falcons were sold and the new owner wanted to demonstrate there's a new era in Georgia football and renamed the team the Atlanta N*ggers. Would that be acceptable?

For the same reasons an expansion team would be inappropriate, as would a name change. Context is what's important here.

4. Would the identity and history of the Chicago White Sox be drastically different if they dropped the Sox from their name? What if they corrected the name's spelling

I actually don't have anything to go on here. Does a name change change the team's history, fan base?

I would argue no. A name change doesn't do that. The Los Angels Angels carry the same history that the Anahiem Angels and California Angels have. The Tampa Bay Rays have the same history as the Devil Rays, the New Orleans Pelicans carry the same history as the Hornets. Therefore if the Redskins change their name, their rich history would remain intact.


Now all that said, there is debate on who determines what a racial slur. I don't believe the majority gets to decide what a slur is, but the race that's being degragated. While there are conflicting non-scientific polls saying varying degrees of Native Americans are ok with the term Redskin, the following tribes have spoken out against it:

Affiliated Tribes of Northwest Indians
Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma
Comanche Nation of Oklahoma
The Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation (Washington)
Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians (Michigan)
Hoh Indian Tribe
Inter Tribal Council of Arizona
Inter-Tribal Council of the Five Civilized Tribes
Juaneño Band of Mission Indians (California)
Little River Band of Ottawa Indians (Michigan)
Match-E-Be-Nash-She-Wish Band of Pottawatomi Indians, Gun Lake Tribe (Michigan)
Menominee Tribe of Indians (Wisconsin)
Oneida Indian Nation (New York)
Oneida Tribe of Indians of Wisconsin
Na###o Nation Council
Penobscot Nation
Poarch Band of Creek Indians
Samish Indian Nation (Washington)
Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians (Michigan)
Shoshone-Bannock Tribes (Idaho)
Standing Rock Sioux Tribe (North Dakota)
The Three Affiliated Tribes of the Fort Berthold Indian Reservation (North Dakota)
United South and Eastern Tribes (USET)

The following Native American organizations have spoken out against the term Redskin:

American Indian Movement
Native American Finance Officers Association (NAFOA)
Native American Journalists Association
Tulsa Indian Coalition Against Racism

In mind that meets the requirement to say Redskin is a racial slur.

So we get to context.

Should a team be named after a racial slur? Even if the name has been around for generations?

If the people who the slur is against want it changed, then it should be changed. The tribes and groups above want it changed.

At this point I think it's case closed. Change it.


But, I will fall back in context. If the team is that hard pressed on keeping the name Redskins, why not change the context of Redskins? Could they make the logo a football, whereby the reference becomes the cour of the pigskin and not a race of people?

Heck logo changes are even more common than name changes, look at our rivals to the west, how many logos have the Canucks had?

You see, I'm actually a reasonable poster, who debates openly and fairly. A debate isn't me versus you, it's the process of refining an idea, making it better, stronger. That's why you answer questions posed, because if the argument is strong it'll stand up.

[Peanut]

Originally Posted by Trumbull

People went out of their way all day long to suggest I'm another poster despite having no proof whatsoever. I would venture an educated guess they enjoy rather pointless endeavours.

But... You're so obviously strombad.

[driveway]

I'm enjoying Trumbull's vox populi, vox dei argument, particularly because the oldest known use of the phrase states:

And those people should not be listened to who keep saying the voice of the people is the voice of God, since the riotousness of the crowd is always very close to madness.
-Alcuin, 798.

[nfotiu]

Originally Posted by Maritime Q-Scout

If people grew up with a sports franchise with a long and rich tradition that was unfortunately named the N*ggers, but when people referred to the team it was in the sense of sport and not the degradation of a race then the degradation loses it's meaning in context and therefore would be acceptable.

That's very different since N... is commonly accepted as being a slur for years. Redskins might be at worst more similar to calling an African American a negro or black. And is also on the same level as calling a Native American an Indian. All words that have roots in describing a skin color, and all words that did not start out as being slurs.

Now all that said, there is debate on who determines what a racial slur. I don't believe the majority gets to decide what a slur is, but the race that's being degragated. While there are conflicting non-scientific polls saying varying degrees of Native Americans are ok with the term Redskin, the following tribes have spoken out against it:

Affiliated Tribes of Northwest Indians
Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma
Comanche Nation of Oklahoma
The Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation (Washington)
Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians (Michigan)
Hoh Indian Tribe
Inter Tribal Council of Arizona
Inter-Tribal Council of the Five Civilized Tribes
Juaneño Band of Mission Indians (California)
Little River Band of Ottawa Indians (Michigan)
Match-E-Be-Nash-She-Wish Band of Pottawatomi Indians, Gun Lake Tribe (Michigan)
Menominee Tribe of Indians (Wisconsin)
Oneida Indian Nation (New York)
Oneida Tribe of Indians of Wisconsin
Na###o Nation Council
Penobscot Nation
Poarch Band of Creek Indians
Samish Indian Nation (Washington)
Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians (Michigan)
Shoshone-Bannock Tribes (Idaho)
Standing Rock Sioux Tribe (North Dakota)
The Three Affiliated Tribes of the Fort Berthold Indian Reservation (North Dakota)
United South and Eastern Tribes (USET)

The following Native American organizations have spoken out against the term Redskin:

Advocates for American Indian Children (California)
American Indian Mental Health Association (Minnesota)
American Indian Movement
American Indian Opportunities Industrialization Center of San Bernardino County
American Indian Student Services at the Ohio State University
American Indian High Education Consortium
American Indian College Fund
Americans for Indian Opportunity
Association on American Indian Affairs
Buncombe County Native American Inter-tribal Association (North Carolina)
Capitol Area Indian Resources (Sacramento, CA)
Concerned American Indian Parents (Minnesota)
Council for Indigenous North Americans (University of Southern Maine)
Eagle and Condor Indigenous Peoples’ Alliance
First Peoples Worldwide
Fontana Native American Indian Center, Inc. (California)
Governor’s Interstate Indian Council
Greater Tulsa Area Indian Affairs Commission
Great Lakes Inter-Tribal Council (Wisconsin)
HONOR – Honor Our Neighbors Origins and Rights
Kansas Association for Native American Education
Maryland Commission on Indian Affairs
Medicine Wheel Inter-tribal Association (Louisiana)
Minnesota Indian Education Association
National Congress of American Indians (NCAI)
National Indian Child Welfare Association
National Indian Education Association
National Indian Youth Council
National Native American Law Student Association
Native American Caucus of the California Democratic Party
Native American Finance Officers Association (NAFOA)
Native American Journalists Association
Native American Indian Center of Central Ohio
Native American Journalists Association
Native American Rights Fund (NARF)
Native Voice Network
Nebraska Commission on Indian Affairs
Nottawaseppi Huron Band of Potawatomi (Michigan)
North Carolina Commission of Indian Affairs
North Dakota Indian Education Association
Office of Native American Ministry, Diocese of Grand Rapids (Michigan)
Ohio Center for Native American Affairs
San Bernardino/Riverside Counties Native American Community Council
Seminole Nation of Oklahoma
Society of Indian Psychologists of the Americas
Southern California Indian Center
St. Cloud State University – American Indian Center
Tennessee Chapter of the National Coalition for the Preservation of Indigenous Cultures
Tennessee Commission of Indian Affairs
Tennessee Native Veterans Society
Tulsa Indian Coalition Against Racism
The Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation
Unified Coalition for American Indian Concerns, Virginia
The United Indian Nations of Oklahoma
Virginia American Indian Cultural Resource Center
Wisconsin Indian Education Association
WIEA “Indian” Mascot and Logo Taskforce (Wisconsin)
Woodland Indian Community Center-Lansing (Michigan)
Youth “Indian” Mascot and Logo Task force (Wisconsin)

In mind that meets the requirement to say Redskin is a racial slur.

So we get to context.

Should a team be named after a racial slur? Even if the name has been around for generations?

If the people who the slur is against want it changed, then it should be changed. The tribes and groups above want it changed.

What's the source of that list? The few organizations I Googled seem to not even have a web presence except to be listed as against Native American mascots in general. Does that list represent the majority of Native Americans? The movement from within that community seems to be against all types of names and mascots, so that does not really prove that they think it is a slur.

I think that brings up a different argument entirely, and that is whether all Native American team names and mascots and Tomahawk chops should be eliminated? And that seemed to be the argument that started 15-20 years ago. Maybe they should be. But I'd still like to have some kind of accurate poll of what that community really thinks. Maybe the majority are sports fans and actually feel well represented by some of the names and logos. When this movement started, no one was talking about Redskins being a slur. It is only over the last 2-3 years that some people decided to start calling it a slur.

[Maritime Q-Scout]

Originally Posted by nfotiu

That's very different since N... is commonly accepted as being a slur for years. Redskins might be at worst more similar to calling an African American a negro or black. And is also on the same level as calling a Native American an Indian. All words that have roots in describing a skin color, and all words that did not start out as being slurs.

So it's the level of slur that's relevant? The Mississippi Negros would be acceptable because it isn't as bad a N*gger?

That's like saying "it's ok for me to call you a d*uchebag because I didn't call you an a**hole".

What's the source of that list? The few organizations I Googled seem to not even have a web presence except to be listed as against Native American mascots in general. Does that list represent the majority of Native Americans? The movement from within that community seems to be against all types of names and mascots, so that does not really prove that they think it is a slur.

List was from Wikiepdia which is generally reliable if sourced. I misread the sources (assumed that the citation was for all above as they usually state that a fact/lost requires citation). That's what I get for posting before I go to bed.

Regardless here are the citations listed, I'll edit the above post.

http://www.aimovement.org/ncrsm/index.html

http://www.changethemascot.org/wp-co...dskins_Use.pdf

http://www.ais.illinois.edu/document...eading-red.pdf

http://m.newson6.com/story.aspx?stor...1&catId=112042

I think that brings up a different argument entirely, and that is whether all Native American team names and mascots and Tomahawk chops should be eliminated? And that seemed to be the argument that started 15-20 years ago. Maybe they should be. But I'd still like to have some kind of accurate poll of what that community really thinks. Maybe the majority are sports fans and actually feel well represented by some of the names and logos. When this movement started, no one was talking about Redskins being a slur. It is only over the last 2-3 years that some people decided to start calling it a slur.

No it's the same argument, just a progression of it.

Names of teams that honour Native American tribes are likely fine, in the same way that team names that honour other groups of people are fine (Canucks, Canadiens, Texans comes to mind).

As for Tamahawk chop, mascots etc, if the Native American communities think it's inappropriate then they should stop.

Alas this isn't something that will change all at once. You have to start somewhere, change takes time and happens incrementally.

Cleveland is taking small steps to gradually make the team less offensive. It's mind boggling that Washington is digging in their heels.

[nfotiu]

Originally Posted by Maritime Q-Scout

So it's the level of slur that's relevant? The Mississippi Negros would be acceptable because it isn't as bad a N*gger?

That's like saying "it's ok for me to call you a d*uchebag because I didn't call you an a**hole".

I think the argument is more is it a slur or not. Is negro a slurr or just a word that became outdated? Is black a slur? It seems to me that around here the only people who call black people African Americans are the ones who are people who think they are going out of their way to show how not racist they are, even though they are most likely to be the ones who cross the street if a black person is coming the other way. While, the people who hang out with a healthy mix of different races seem to just casually say white guy or black guy. Oddly enough, the most common. and mean spirited slur used to refer to black people around here is to call then Canadians. So, what now, is Montreal's name in trouble? It just seems there is no black or white way to determine slur vs non-slur, and the evidence that Redskins is a slur is not very compelling.
[/quote]

No it's the same argument, just a progression of it.

Names of teams that honour Native American tribes are likely fine, in the same way that team names that honour other groups of people are fine (Canucks, Canadiens, Texans comes to mind).

As for Tamahawk chop, mascots etc, if the Native American communities think it's inappropriate then they should stop.

Alas this isn't something that will change all at once. You have to start somewhere, change takes time and happens incrementally.

Cleveland is taking small steps to gradually make the team less offensive. It's mind boggling that Washington is digging in their heels.

I think there is a big grey area of what is what is honoring and what is not. It seems the general population generally doesn't have a problem with most of the names, etc. There is a vocal group that obviously does have a problem with the names. But my question is: Does that vocal group represent the majority of Native Americans? I haven't seen anything to convince me one way or another on that question.

[Maritime Q-Scout]

The list of Native American tribes is enough to convince me.

I spoke of the context before. I agree the name is contextual, hence why changing the logo to a football would be appropriate if you want to keep the name.

So I guess the next question is:

Can you define a racial slur? What evidence would you need to agree that "Redskin" is a racial slur?