Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Too Hot for Swamp Gas' started by Spurffelbow833, Jun 12, 2013.
how about the Washington Woodpeckers-for short we could call them the peckers :laugh:
The phallic imagery would be appropriate for the homoerotic undertones of the sport.
As a Dallas fan (a little, I'm not crazy about the NFL product anymore) I already refer to them as something similar.
Right, because walking into a group of "Blacks" and saying "Hello Blacks!" is going to be warmly received. Again, 90%, the survey has already been done. What did we learn from the survey (if anything)?
I've learned that it can and will be used to support one's position on this issue. Of course given the fact that it's possible that it's not accurate I'll personally not be basing any definitive conclusions off it, pro or con. Self-identifying is the first problematic factor with it.
I'd still recommend against the salutation in question. But that's just my own judgment based on unofficial data and personal reasoning. I'd have a significant interest in witnessing anyone give it a go though. EDIT--Oh, I see what you're saying now Wes. I misunderstood the first time around. Yes, I'd agree. Wading into a group and using a technically acceptable label may not be well received either. But if you substitute "redskins" in for anyplace that "blacks" would be tolerated when addressing...um....blacks?, I suspect that wouldn't generally get the same acceptance. Again, JMO.
I don't think what I said previously is in disagreement with your above. What I am saying though is that emotion does not equal irrational. They are not synonyms. It is irrational to say that I can jump 10 feet from the ground. But that statement wasn't derived from some emotion. It's just not rational.
What I'm getting at is that I feel that it comes across as dismissive when states that reacting to a racial slur is irrational. Actually, it would probably more irrational to think that saying racially insensitive remarks to a targeted group will not elicit an emotional response. There really is a distinction here and I think it is an important one. This is where I think we disagree.
Irrational and emotional are not the same word.
I don't say this from the perspective of "I don't get offended, and neither should you." I say this from the perspective of "I get offended, and I know I shouldn't because the mindset that I'm in is not as productive as it could be if I refused to be offended or otherwise converted that feeling of being offended into motivation to prove that I'm better than they think I am." I think my view may come off as "dismissive" because my comments might lead one to infer that one shouldn't get offended "because WESGATORS doesn't get offended" -> that's not the message I'm trying to convey.
My intention is to suggest that if we refuse to be offended, there is nothing that can offend us...in doing so, we remove power to offend from the offending party (which, presumably, is the goal). That puts the solution entirely in our hands rather than in the hands of others. Is it idealistic? Perhaps, but the concept is useful for me. It may not be useful for everybody, but at least I've shared it for people to consider whether it may be useful for themselves or not.
I've stated a few times in this thread that the term was both recognized as offensive and often used intentionally as a derogatory slur in that time period, hand in hand with "savages" to depict Native Americans in a derogatory fashion. That could be seen clearly in many old Western movies.
Derogatory use hardly started 20 years ago... more like 150 years ago or more... as we demonized Native Americans while driving them off their lands... it's much easier to engage in immoral behavior when you demonize the people you're directing that behavior at.
Taking scalps. Using broken English.
I see what you're saying... no stereotypes there. :joecool:
Yes, it certainly is idealistic and perhaps a goal to shoot for as we progress through social evolution. But realistically, that's just not the world we live in as a whole. It kind of gets back to one of the original things I mentioned - dealing in the hear and now. Perhaps 200 years from now we will have progressed to a point where racial remarks are no longer viewed as racist remarks. But I find it doubtful. I think we will always be addled by this very biological impulse to have defense groups. I think we are just wired that way. It has served people well in many instances, and we have come to dominate the planet despite some of that impulse's shortcomings.
On another note, we typically agree on football stuff which is significantly more important than what we are talking about now
Fairly slanted article. "Braves" is not a slur but "Redskins" is?
D.C. was considered a Southern city in the 30's,40' and 50's.The playing of Dixie then was a part of the American songbook as it was into the 70's. Now it's evidence of racism.Writer has no historical perspective.
And if it was so offensive in the 30's ,why would a promoter like Marshall use such a turnoff word, or his successors continue with t he practice?
Braves was never a term used in a derogatory fashion AFAIK.
Redskins was often used in a derogatory fashion... hand in hand with "savages". And the typical qualifiers like filthy and blood thirsty.
As far as the term being used for the mascot, it was done in a sport that glorifies violence and often uses dangerous predators for mascots. Using Redskins in this fashion is absolutely consistent with racist views of Native Americans as animalistic savages, and consistent with football fans wanting their teams playing like animalistic savages.
Of course, they could also have gone with Braves (left it that way) or Chiefs or Warriors... all terms with generally positive humanized connotations, including bravery and dignity, and all terms much preferred by Native Americans. For whatever reasons, they decided against that route.
Just about any word could be used as a derogatory term, but that doesn't mean that it was used derogatorily in the matter that is being contested. The term "black" is considered acceptable by most folks, but a racist could certainly use the term in a disparaging way...that doesn't make ALL uses of the term racist, nor does that disqualify the word from ever being used in an acceptable fashion. Savages is a poor comparison, in my opinion, because the term implies undesirable behavior (although there have been teams names as such in the past).
The term "Redskins" for all intents and purposes appears to have originated from the Native Americans. And that being used as a disparagement is no different than using "Native American" or "American Indian" as a disparagement. The offense is not in the term, but in the view of the people that the term is referring to.
You make a fair and accurate point in how the term originated.
Even if the negative story about scalps is accurate, there was plenty of common usage documented through early 19th century where Native and European Americans used the term like black or white, just as an ethnic differentiator and not in a derogatory fashion.
But much like the Tea Party, the term Redskin got coopted for purposes other than original intent. It was used repeatedly in derogatory fashion by white Americans in power through several decades as part of the dehumanization and rationalization of all the stealing and killing aimed at Native Americans. And that dehumanization and disparagement carried clearly into many Western movies including those in the '30s.
From the Wikipedia entry on Redskin:
If modern Native Americans are okay with the team keeping its name, that's fine by me. But let's not pretend the history is anything other than it was.
A term with that kind of baggage is going to be offensive to the people it was aimed at, no matter how benign the origin of the word.
eventually, congress will bring the pressure and snyder will change the name to something politically correct -- how about the leopards or polar bears?
Oak, I appreciate the information, and at the very least, it warrants more consideration on my part that the term may have been offensive (both in delivery and in reception) prior to the 90's. Hopefully we can agree that given the apparent approval rating of the team name that the term isn't remotely close to the "n" word and how acceptable it is in today's world (I doubt that anybody would even consider doing a survey for such a thing). I remain skeptical that the team was named with slander in mind, and I think it's entirely possible that respect was genuinely intended by the owner, but I understand that some may feel differently. I do wonder as to how many offended persons warrant the changing of a team name: 1 in 100,000? 1%? 5%? 10%? 50%? Does this impact their revenue generation? Will anybody ask for the government to step in?
I did look at the reviews on Amazon for the book that is referenced about the literary analysis. Coincidentally, that review was done in 2001, and the reviews are few and extremely polarizing (makes me want to read the book to formulate my own opinion ).
I've probably exhausted the expression of my views (apologies to anybody who may have gotten sick of what I had to say), and I've certainly taken in ideas to consider from others. That's all I can really expect to get out of a thread like this. I'll be happy to address any ambiguities I may have left lingering, but short of that, thanks to all who have contributed.
It wouldn't have been the same back in the 80's without hearing and watching, as Pat Summerall said it , "John Rrrrrrrrrrrrrrriggins has rrrrrrrrrrrreeeewrrrrrrrrrrrritten the Rrrrrrrrrrrrredskins rrrrrrrrrrrrrrushing rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrecordbook today with 200 yards on 400 carries," as Riggins sucked on the oxygen from the first play to the last.
And of course, I am all for letting things run its course.
If enough people are offended the name will change. Govt should have no role in this, IMO.
I have it on good authority that Native Americans are huge Redskin fans.. "Thunderheart" 1992 - Val Kilmer. I warn you though it's about two hours of your life you CANNOT get back.