Re: The rest of the NFL
Posted: Thu May 30, 2013 8:20 pm
Named Sticky?
At overt racism? I mean the government isn't going to "force" anyone to change names anyway but this is a silly question. The line is pretty clear, we aren't sliding down a slippery slope toward abolishing all team names or something.AllThingsKC wrote:There are people offended by these names:
Washington Redskins
Kansas City Chiefs
Cleveland Indians
Atlanta Braves
Florida State Seminoles
All of those teams have been protested against because their names are offensive or potentially offensive. If the government forces the Redskins to change their name, where is the line drawn for acceptable team names?
You could make that case, but it would only be as an argument to overly define the problem to water it down. You could just as easily go the other way and say if Redskins is not offensive, then NOTHING is offensive, therefore you support a team being called the New York N*ggers.AllThingsKC wrote:A case could be made that names like "Indians" or "Braves" are just as racist as "Redskins." The name "Redskins" has negative racist views associated with it. The name "Braves" has positive racist views associated with it. In other words, it's like saying:
"All Hispanics are liars."- or - "All Hispanics can be trusted." By singling out Hispanics, both are racist statements. One is negative and one is positive.
So, while I don't believe the gov't will force anyone to change their names, it's kind of silly to only focus on the "Redskins" (because it appears to have a negative meaning) and ignore "Indians," "Braves," or "Chiefs" as names that could be viewed just as racist (in a positive way).
Therefore, if the gov't were to legislate something like this, they'd have to define which names violate whatever "feel-good law" they wish to pass. Again, I highly doubt the gov't will actually go through with something like that. But, the fact Congress is already merely discussing this might show another gov't over-reach of power could be in our future. In my opinion, that would just as stupid as Congress getting involved in the college football playoff system (which they did).
Of course, the Chiefs/Indians/Braves have been protested against for having their names viewed as racist in negative ways, so there's that angle too.
This is right. But, what business is it of theirs anyway?phuqueue wrote:I haven't read that Congress was "discussing" legislation -- even the link you posted only says that ten members of Congress sent a letter urging the team to change its name.
I'm not so sure about that. If the case can be made that Redskins are not offensive, then probably none of the Native American-themed teams are offensive since it appears most people here think Chiefs/Indians/Braves are not nearly as offensive as the Redskins.KCMax wrote:You could just as easily go the other way and say if Redskins is not offensive, then NOTHING is offensive, therefore you support a team being called the New York N*ggers.
But over the past several decades, all of those teams have been protested against for being offensive and/or racist. So, why focus solely on the Redskins?KCMax wrote:Redskins is a ridiculously antiquated racist name. Braves and Chiefs and Seminoles and Indians are not.
What if only 50% of the Native American tribal counsels find the name racist or offensive?shinatoo wrote:If the majority of the Native American tribal counsels find the name racist and offensive then it's racist and offensive. It's a pretty easy line to draw.
Because they're influential public figures working and, at least some of the time, living in the city that hosts the team, who recognize that something is wrong here and want to fix it? If it was just ten DC residents, or even ten football fans from wherever, you wouldn't ask what business it is of theirs. Just because they're members of Congress doesn't mean they've forfeited the right to voice their opinions on non-governmental matters.AllThingsKC wrote:This is right. But, what business is it of theirs anyway?phuqueue wrote:I haven't read that Congress was "discussing" legislation -- even the link you posted only says that ten members of Congress sent a letter urging the team to change its name.
I don't put much stock in which racial slurs white people think are more offensive than others.I'm not so sure about that. If the case can be made that Redskins are not offensive, then probably none of the Native American-themed teams are offensive since it appears most people here think Chiefs/Indians/Braves are not nearly as offensive as the Redskins.KCMax wrote:You could just as easily go the other way and say if Redskins is not offensive, then NOTHING is offensive, therefore you support a team being called the New York N*ggers.
Also, if someone were to make that a solid argument, I don't think it would automatically mean people would be ok with a team being called the "New York N*ggers." That's because different words have slightly different meanings, some meanings being strong than others. I would submit to you that the "N" word is used in a much more offensive way today than the word, "Redskins." Though both are racial slurs, I think one has a stronger meaning than the other.
I already said they should all be changed, so personally I wouldn't focus on just them, but it's not that tough a case to make anyway: one is an outright racial slur and the others are just words that are being used in an inappropriate context.But over the past several decades, all of those teams have been protested against for being offensive and/or racist. So, why focus solely on the Redskins?KCMax wrote:Redskins is a ridiculously antiquated racist name. Braves and Chiefs and Seminoles and Indians are not.
You're trying to make this far more complicated than it actually is, and I don't really understand why.What if only 50% of the Native American tribal counsels find the name racist or offensive?shinatoo wrote:If the majority of the Native American tribal counsels find the name racist and offensive then it's racist and offensive. It's a pretty easy line to draw.
What if the majority of the Native American tribal counsels don't have problem with the name, but the majority of other groups do?
What if the majority of the Native American tribal counsels have a problem with the name, but they're in minority since most people likely wouldn't have a problem with the name?
What if I do not like green eggs and ham?
Right. Because those would be private citizens. They do not have the same influence nor the authority as 10 members of Congress.phuqueue wrote:If it was just ten DC residents, or even ten football fans from wherever, you wouldn't ask what business it is of theirs.
By members of Congress getting involved, they are making it a governmental matter.phuqueue wrote:Just because they're members of Congress doesn't mean they've forfeited the right to voice their opinions on non-governmental matters.
Which is a racist thing to say.phuqueue wrote:I don't put much stock in which racial slurs white people think are more offensive than others.
I agree with this.phuqueue wrote:I already said they should all be changed, so personally I wouldn't focus on just them, but it's not that tough a case to make anyway: one is an outright racial slur and the others are just words that are being used in an inappropriate context.
I don't think the issue is as black and white as that.bobbyhawks wrote: We aren't even close to a grey area yet when Chief Wahoo and the "Redskins" name still exist. Those are pretty easy to decipher as a problem.
So now you have a problem with whites too!AllThingsKC wrote:I don't think the issue is as black and white as that.bobbyhawks wrote: We aren't even close to a grey area yet when Chief Wahoo and the "Redskins" name still exist. Those are pretty easy to decipher as a problem.
But that's not what you're arguing. You're saying "if you think Redskins is offensive, then you have to think Chiefs and Braves and Indians are offensive too!" But you don't. You can say "Redskins is offensive because it goes beyond the pale as an offensive term, whereas Braves and Indians and Chiefs are quite a bit more ambiguous." Lumping them all together just distorts the issue. The only question really is "is Redskins offensive" and I think the answer is hands down - yes.I'm not so sure about that. If the case can be made that Redskins are not offensive, then probably none of the Native American-themed teams are offensive since it appears most people here think Chiefs/Indians/Braves are not nearly as offensive as the Redskins.
I agree, which is why I think "Redskins" is much stronger and offensive than "Indians", "Chiefs" or "Braves."Also, if someone were to make that a solid argument, I don't think it would automatically mean people would be ok with a team being called the "New York N*ggers." That's because different words have slightly different meanings, some meanings being strong than others. I would submit to you that the "N" word is used in a much more offensive way today than the word, "Redskins." Though both are racial slurs, I think one has a stronger meaning than the other.
That's not exactly what I'm trying to say. I don't mean to suggest that, "If you have a problem with Redskins, you should have a problem with Native American-themed names."KCMax wrote: But that's not what you're arguing. You're saying "if you think Redskins is offensive, then you have to think Chiefs and Braves and Indians are offensive too!"
Right on. But, all those teams have been protested against.KCMax wrote:I agree, which is why I think "Redskins" is much stronger and offensive than "Indians", "Chiefs" or "Braves."
I'm not arguing the standard should be "who has been protested against." The standard should be "what is ridiculously racist"?AllThingsKC wrote:That's not exactly what I'm trying to say. I don't mean to suggest that, "If you have a problem with Redskins, you should have a problem with Native American-themed names."KCMax wrote: But that's not what you're arguing. You're saying "if you think Redskins is offensive, then you have to think Chiefs and Braves and Indians are offensive too!"
I agree with you that "Redskins" is by far the much more offensive name. Not denying that at all. But, people haven't only protested the Redskins. They've protested teams with much less offensive names. If Google is any indication (and I'm aware that it's far from scientific), it would appear more people are upset with the Cleveland Indians logo than the name, "Redskins."
Right on. But, all those teams have been protested against.KCMax wrote:I agree, which is why I think "Redskins" is much stronger and offensive than "Indians", "Chiefs" or "Braves."
So when John Boehner buys a sandwich it's a government matter?AllThingsKC wrote:Right. Because those would be private citizens. They do not have the same influence nor the authority as 10 members of Congress.phuqueue wrote:If it was just ten DC residents, or even ten football fans from wherever, you wouldn't ask what business it is of theirs.
By members of Congress getting involved, they are making it a governmental matter.phuqueue wrote:Just because they're members of Congress doesn't mean they've forfeited the right to voice their opinions on non-governmental matters.
No it isn't. White people can conceptualize racism in the abstract but I doubt very many can understand the actual experience of it. Even in countries where white people are a minority, they don't experience the kind of institutionalized discrimination they've imposed on other races over the centuries; even when they're a fairly small minority they often still impose such discrimination on others (eg South African apartheid). I say this as just about the whitest person you will ever meet. There is no scale on which you can determine that one racial slur is "worse" than another, particularly when they target different groups of people. It's condescending (to put it as politely as possible) for one who will never be the victim of racism himself to decide which slur is more offensive to members of the target groups.Which is a racist thing to say.phuqueue wrote:I don't put much stock in which racial slurs white people think are more offensive than others.
It doesn't matter what the organization thinks, or what the fans think. Southern governments thought Jim Crow was fine, and so did most white Southerners. It's a racial slur. They've coopted Indian imagery for its associations with a demeaning caricature that they are helping to perpetuate. Racism is racism. It's not gray, but you can tell yourself that it is if it makes you feel better.No one involved with the Redskins or Indians organizations seems to think their names or logos are racist, and I imagine most of their fans are fine with them as well. I don't think they're malicious or denegrating; on the contrary, I think it's pretty obvious that these orfanizations have co-opted Indian imagery for its associations with laudable qualities like bravery and skill and the warrior spirit.
And then there are people like you who think people like me are bigots. So the ground looks pretty gray.
Well, let's see: Is he and teaming-up with other members of Congress and sending a letter to the sandwich maker suggesting they change the name of their sandwiches? Or is he merely buying a sandwich?phuqueue wrote:So when John Boehner buys a sandwich it's a government matter?
I respectfully disagree. And we're not likely to make each other change our minds. But, I did want to clarify that I wasn't trying to suggest that the "N" carries more weight than the word, "Redskins." They are both racial slurs meant for 2 different races. I can't speak to their level of offensiveness among those races. But, based on my own personal experience, the "N" word seems to be used more than the word, "Redskins." In fact, I have never heard anyone call a Native American a "redskin" (not saying people don't use that word). But, people and media seem to be more hung up with the use of the "N" word (which, in my invalid opinion, is probably more likely to be heard in America). But, I wasn't trying to downplay the significance of either word, just trying to evaluate which one you'd be more likely to hear if you're walking down a street.phuqueue wrote: No it isn't. White people can conceptualize racism in the abstract but I doubt very many can understand the actual experience of it. Even in countries where white people are a minority, they don't experience the kind of institutionalized discrimination they've imposed on other races over the centuries; even when they're a fairly small minority they often still impose such discrimination on others (eg South African apartheid). I say this as just about the whitest person you will ever meet. There is no scale on which you can determine that one racial slur is "worse" than another, particularly when they target different groups of people. It's condescending (to put it as politely as possible) for one who will never be the victim of racism himself to decide which slur is more offensive to members of the target groups.