• TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
    Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
    Join free Log in
    Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.

Washington Redskins name

#208
Immigrant said:
That's like saying you can't call out racist behavior unless you are the target of the racism.



That's confusing to me. Why should "Dirty" be placed in front of an already derogatory term in order for it to be over the top?

Of course it's harmful and racist. If the team was named on behalf of people who were kidnapped from their country and brought here for labor purposes and was called the ______skins, would that be OK? Maybe it would be best for the Washington NFL team to discuss with actual representatives of the ethnicity in question what terms can be used to convey the message sent by naming a team after Native Americans.
Click to expand...

According the the native americans and tribes that have been questioned about this, they are not offended and don't see the problem. So how can it be racist if they don't think it's racist?

If they change the Washington name, they have to change the name of the Yankees. Yankee was a word the Dutch used as a derogatory term for the English on Manhatten Island.
 
#209
^ Who are the "they" that don't think it's racist?

macaroni tony said:
.....I thought "Well who is conducting the poll (I think the team itself is the one who put out the results)? Whom are they polling? Which tribes heard "redskin" all the time? Which tribes never, ever heard it?"
Click to expand...

The group of Natives that are parked outside of every Redskin home game, and the group of Natives leading the charge for the name change in DC were obviously not among the polled. Apparently someone still thinks it's racist. By contrast, no one thinks "yankee" is racist. If there are enough folks who actually do take offense to the name "Yankees," then they will take action and maybe in a few decades that team name will be changed as well
 
Last edited:
#210
Gravedigger Dav said:
According the the native americans and tribes that have been questioned about this, they are not offended and don't see the problem. So how can it be racist if they don't think it's racist?
Click to expand...
That's not accurate. Some do, some don't, there are many articles and polls that back this up. Here's one. http://mmqb.si.com/2014/04/03/washington-nfl-team-name-debate/

"At least a dozen members of Congress want the name changed, as do some civil rights groups and vocal members of the national media. The people at the heart of the debate, though, are those at the grass-roots level among the more than 500 recognized tribes in the U.S. The MMQB took the temperature of Native Americans from coast to coast—representing 18 tribes in 10 states—and found a complicated and nuanced issue. What we did not find: the Invalid Link Removed that Snyder and NFL commissioner Roger Goodell have claimed support the name “Redskins.”

We found opponents of the name in 18 tribes: veterans of the U.S. military, lawyers, college students, cultural center employees, school volunteers and restaurant servers. Their viewpoints align with official statements from dozens of tribes or inter-tribal councils and from the NCAI, which represents more than 250 tribal governments at the Embassy of Tribal Nations. Many of these people wondered how, or if, their voices are being counted."
 
#211
Maybe the controversy surrounding names is country/race dependent? We had a mountain in the Canmore area that used to be called "Chinaman's Peak" named for a Chinese guy who climbed it when the CPR was putting the railway through there. They changed the name due to complaints from members of the Chinese community. There's a hill overlooking the Stampede grounds here in Calgary known as "Scotsman's Hill." Far as I know there have been no complaints. Calgary has a large contingent of Scottish descendants (I'm one), and I've never heard any controversy around the name. Same goes for jokes - Scot's notorious cheapness (they're actually more frugal than cheap) is a standard theme. No one takes offense that I know of, and just laughs it off.
 
#212
bachlover said:
Maybe the controversy surrounding names is country/race dependent? We had a mountain in the Canmore area that used to be called "Chinaman's Peak" named for a Chinese guy who climbed it when the CPR was putting the railway through there. They changed the name due to complaints from members of the Chinese community. There's a hill overlooking the Stampede grounds here in Calgary known as "Scotsman's Hill." Far as I know there have been no complaints. Calgary has a large contingent of Scottish descendants (I'm one), and I've never heard any controversy around the name. Same goes for jokes - Scot's notorious cheapness (they're actually more frugal than cheap) is a standard theme. No one takes offense that I know of, and just laughs it off.
Click to expand...
The term Scotsman doesn't have the historical negative sentiment that Chinaman has. Scottish people were/are not as oppressed as Chinese, at least not in such recent times.
 
#213
Gravedigger Dav said:
According the the native americans and tribes that have been questioned about this, they are not offended and don't see the problem. So how can it be racist if they don't think it's racist?

If they change the Washington name, they have to change the name of the Yankees. Yankee was a word the Dutch used as a derogatory term for the English on Manhatten Island.
Click to expand...

1. It's racist because it's a racist term. Just because someone isn't offended doesn't mean it's not a racist term. It's a perjorative term, coined by people who were in the habit of stealing Native land, and infecting Natives with Smallpox.
2. Many Native Americans are offended by the name. I'm so sorry they did such a poor job of polling.
3. Yankee is not a racist term. It does not refer to a race.
 
#214
304.gif
 
#216
mellowinman said:
1. It's racist because it's a racist term. Just because someone isn't offended doesn't mean it's not a racist term. It's a perjorative term, coined by people who were in the habit of stealing Native land, and infecting Natives with Smallpox.
2. Many Native Americans are offended by the name. I'm so sorry they did such a poor job of polling.
3. Yankee is not a racist term. It does not refer to a race.
Click to expand...

1. A label cannot be racists if it not an offensive term. Our PC society has made labels racist that were never intended to be because somebody didn't like the term.
2. I only know of one liberal activist american native that is campaigning against that and Braves. Her objection to Braves shows how misinformed she is. I believe she wants to be famous. Who am I missing?
3. I didn't say is was a racist term, it was originally a slur on people of English heritage. Is a term not offensive because it doesn't refer to race?

I quote:
Professor Luvell Anderson of the University of Memphis, in his paper "Slurring Words", argues that for a word to be a slur, the word must communicate ideas beyond identifying a target group, and that, slurs are offensive because the additional data contained in those words differentiates those individuals from otherwise accepted groups.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Eric Perry
#218
Seems like the "Yankees" thing is being dredged up again and again. So I'll quote myself from page 1.
GregC said:
Seems like apples to battleships there. If that Yankee thing is even true, it must have been used on a much smaller scale for a much shorter time. Redskin, by comparison, refers to an immutable characteristic, was used much more recently, never evolved in meaning to something more neutral as Yankee did, and is connected to centuries of racism and the annihilation of a people.
Click to expand...
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back