Redskins lose their trademark

[Celtics18]

Depends on who you associate with, I suppose. the US still has skinheads, too, but their beliefs are hardly as popular as they were even twenty years ago (except, perhaps, among Dan Snyder supporters).

I don't think that if you ask someone for a *** in England, that it implies skinhead beliefs or any kind of bigotry on the part of the speaker. 

You are simply asking for a cigarette.  Everybody understands that. 

[D.o.s.]

Depends on who you associate with, I suppose. the US still has skinheads, too, but their beliefs are hardly as popular as they were even twenty years ago (except, perhaps, among Dan Snyder supporters).

I don't think that if you ask someone for a *** in England, that it implies skinhead beliefs or any kind of bigotry on the part of the speaker. 

You are simply asking for a cigarette.  Everybody understands that. 

Intentionally, I suspect.

[BballTim]

The Team's gotten this overturned before, but I like it.

Dan Snyder remains stubbornly tone deaf (at best).

Said the deaf man.  Tone deaf would actually be changing the name.  Poll after poll after poll confirms overwhelming support for retaining the name.

yeah but the masses are often wrong on these types of things.

Sometimes.  I don't think they are in this case.  In any event, my comment addressed the observation that Snyder is tone deaf.  A great many Native Americans don't have a problem with it either, and in fact have shown support for Snyder in retaining the name.  I don't particularly care much whether they retain the name or not.  This is more an opportunity for pseudo moral preening than it is about any sort of "hate."  Is anybody really "hating" or disparaging Redskins any more than they are Cowboys, or Irish, etc, etc.

the fact that you are even equating the Redskins with the Cowboys, pretty much proves you can't trust the masses.

It boils down to whether you think the name is a pejorative or not, much as with any other identifying word.  If you associate the word Redskin with negative things, then it's a pejorative, if not, it's not.  If you associated the word Irish with negative things, it'd be a pejorative.  There's a lot of phony outrage that is nothing more than transparent status signaling.

So if I think the "N" word is not negative it is ok to use.  Irish are people from Ireland.  A Redskin is a derogatory term for Native Americans.  They aren't any where close to the same thing.  Again, the fact that you think they are is the reason you can't trust the masses on these things.

  Has the "N" word ever been anything other than a derogatory term? If so, when? The problem is whether a term is deemed to be derogatory seems to be rather fluid. The term probably wasn't seen as derogatory when the team was named. What would happen if some people (for example) started referring to gays as "cowboys" or "broncos" or "eagles"? Do those teams need to change their names?

[D.o.s.]

'Seen as derogatory' according to whom, Tim?

[Mencius]

Depends on who you associate with, I suppose. the US still has skinheads, too, but their beliefs are hardly as popular as they were even twenty years ago (except, perhaps, among Dan Snyder supporters).

Here we have the kind of total non sequitur that adds nothing to the conversation.  It's about as relevant as saying the US still has sniveling, PC cowards, too, but their beliefs are hardly as popular as they were even twenty years ago (except, perhaps, among effete Dan Snyder critics.)

It's an attempt at disqualification by bogus association. 

[BballTim]

'Seen as derogatory' according to whom, Tim?

  The vast majority of people? If you owned a sports franchise and were coming up with a name for the team wouldn't you avoid derogatory terms and racial slurs? I would. The naming of the team was meant (intentional or otherwise) as a complement to the people it was named after. People are comparing redskin to wetback. But can anyone consider circumstances where a team would want to name itself the wetbacks, or that a league would allow it?

[D.o.s.]

Depends on who you associate with, I suppose. the US still has skinheads, too, but their beliefs are hardly as popular as they were even twenty years ago (except, perhaps, among Dan Snyder supporters).

Here we have the kind of total non sequitur that adds nothing to the conversation.  It's about as relevant as saying the US still has sniveling, PC cowards, too, but their beliefs are hardly as popular as they were even twenty years ago (except, perhaps, among effete Dan Snyder critics.)

Please try to stay on topic.

One of those is an example. One of those is you using my post to articulate a confusing blend of race-based paranoia, masculinity questioning, and anti government sentiment. Anyway, I fail to see how understanding how something might be considered offensive to others is, in any way, a bad thing.

'Seen as derogatory' according to whom, Tim?

  The vast majority of people? If you owned a sports franchise and were coming up with a name for the team wouldn't you avoid derogatory terms and racial slurs? I would. The naming of the team was meant (intentional or otherwise) as a complement to the people it was named after. People are comparing redskin to wetback. But can anyone consider circumstances where a team would want to name itself the wetbacks, or that a league would allow it?

I don't think that many of the racial views of the 1930's are widely held today. They are, to put it nicely, antiquated.

[BballTim]

'Seen as derogatory' according to whom, Tim?

  The vast majority of people? If you owned a sports franchise and were coming up with a name for the team wouldn't you avoid derogatory terms and racial slurs? I would. The naming of the team was meant (intentional or otherwise) as a complement to the people it was named after. People are comparing redskin to wetback. But can anyone consider circumstances where a team would want to name itself the wetbacks, or that a league would allow it?

I don't think many of that the racial views of the 1930's are widely held today. They are, to put it nicely, antiquated.

  I agree, I just don't think it's likely that you'd name your team something that you thought would be perceived as a racial slur.

[Celtics18]

Depends on who you associate with, I suppose. the US still has skinheads, too, but their beliefs are hardly as popular as they were even twenty years ago (except, perhaps, among Dan Snyder supporters).

Here we have the kind of total non sequitur that adds nothing to the conversation.  It's about as relevant as saying the US still has sniveling, PC cowards, too, but their beliefs are hardly as popular as they were even twenty years ago (except, perhaps, among effete Dan Snyder critics.)

It's an attempt at disqualification by bogus association.

Oh, C'mon,

Surely, anyone would agree that the beliefs of "sniveling, PC cowards" are considerably more popular today than they were twenty years ago. 

Thankfully. 

[D.o.s.]

'Seen as derogatory' according to whom, Tim?

  The vast majority of people? If you owned a sports franchise and were coming up with a name for the team wouldn't you avoid derogatory terms and racial slurs? I would. The naming of the team was meant (intentional or otherwise) as a complement to the people it was named after. People are comparing redskin to wetback. But can anyone consider circumstances where a team would want to name itself the wetbacks, or that a league would allow it?

I don't think many of that the racial views of the 1930's are widely held today. They are, to put it nicely, antiquated.

  I agree, I just don't think it's likely that you'd name your team something that you thought would be perceived as a racial slur.

I'm positive that it wasn't intended as a racial slur. That doesn't really change much about whether or not it is one, though --  Road to hell, good intentions, etc.

[D.o.s.]

http://www.esquire.com/_mobile/blogs/news/true-redskins-meaning?click=promo

This was on the first page of this thread. I doubt many people actually read it, even though it was written by Baxter Holmes, who covers the Celtics.

Native Americans pass down stories to preserve their history and heritage, because we don?t have much of it left. As tribes were systemically exterminated, so too were their respective cultures. But we have our stories, and when my mother was young, her parents shared one about the term ?redskins.?

The story in my family goes that the term dates back to the institutionalized genocide of Native Americans, most notably when the Massachusetts colonial government placed a bounty on their heads. The grisly particulars of that genocide are listed in a 1755 document called the Phips Proclamation, which zeroed in on the Penobscot Indians, a tribe today based in Maine.

Spencer Phips, a British politician and then Lieutenant Governor of the Massachusetts Bay Province, issued the call, ordering on behalf of British King George II for, ?His Majesty?s subjects to Embrace all opportunities of pursuing, captivating, killing and Destroying all and every of the aforesaid Indians.? They paid well ? 50 pounds for adult male scalps; 25 for adult female scalps; and 20 for scalps of boys and girls under age 12.

These bloody scalps were known as ?redskins.?

The mascot of the Washington Redskins, if the team desired accuracy, would be a gory, bloodied crown from the head of a butchered Native American.

Defenders of the team nickname say its origin was totally benign, and that it?s not possible to know the true meaning of the word. Those defenders cite a Smithsonian article that traces an origin to skin color, before the systematic scalping. (A later Smithsonian quote disputed it.)

But my mother knew what it meant, or what it came to mean, and so do many other Native Americans.

And the follow up:
http://www.esquire.com/blogs/news/redskin-name-update

[Future Celtics Owner]

The Team's gotten this overturned before, but I like it.

Dan Snyder remains stubbornly tone deaf (at best).

Said the deaf man.  Tone deaf would actually be changing the name.  Poll after poll after poll confirms overwhelming support for retaining the name.

yeah but the masses are often wrong on these types of things.

Sometimes.  I don't think they are in this case.  In any event, my comment addressed the observation that Snyder is tone deaf.  A great many Native Americans don't have a problem with it either, and in fact have shown support for Snyder in retaining the name.  I don't particularly care much whether they retain the name or not.  This is more an opportunity for pseudo moral preening than it is about any sort of "hate."  Is anybody really "hating" or disparaging Redskins any more than they are Cowboys, or Irish, etc, etc.

the fact that you are even equating the Redskins with the Cowboys, pretty much proves you can't trust the masses.

It boils down to whether you think the name is a pejorative or not, much as with any other identifying word.  If you associate the word Redskin with negative things, then it's a pejorative, if not, it's not.  If you associated the word Irish with negative things, it'd be a pejorative.  There's a lot of phony outrage that is nothing more than transparent status signaling.

So if I think the "N" word is not negative it is ok to use.  Irish are people from Ireland.  A Redskin is a derogatory term for Native Americans.  They aren't any where close to the same thing.  Again, the fact that you think they are is the reason you can't trust the masses on these things.

  Has the "N" word ever been anything other than a derogatory term? If so, when? The problem is whether a term is deemed to be derogatory seems to be rather fluid. The term probably wasn't seen as derogatory when the team was named. What would happen if some people (for example) started referring to gays as "cowboys" or "broncos" or "eagles"? Do those teams need to change their names?

The N word can be much more than a derogatory term, like when used within circles of the African American community it can be a term of endearment or many other things.....we all have seen it or heard it.

[Moranis]

'Seen as derogatory' according to whom, Tim?

  The vast majority of people? If you owned a sports franchise and were coming up with a name for the team wouldn't you avoid derogatory terms and racial slurs? I would. The naming of the team was meant (intentional or otherwise) as a complement to the people it was named after. People are comparing redskin to wetback. But can anyone consider circumstances where a team would want to name itself the wetbacks, or that a league would allow it?

The Atlanta Black Crackers were an actual Negro League team in this country from 1919 to 1939.  They took their name from the Atlanta Crackers, a class Double A team in Atlanta until the Braves moved to Atlanta from Milwaukee.  No one really knows how the Atlanta Crackers got their name, and it probably had nothing to do with a poor white southerner being called a Cracker, but you just don't know on these things.

[BballTim]

The Team's gotten this overturned before, but I like it.

Dan Snyder remains stubbornly tone deaf (at best).

Said the deaf man.  Tone deaf would actually be changing the name.  Poll after poll after poll confirms overwhelming support for retaining the name.

yeah but the masses are often wrong on these types of things.

Sometimes.  I don't think they are in this case.  In any event, my comment addressed the observation that Snyder is tone deaf.  A great many Native Americans don't have a problem with it either, and in fact have shown support for Snyder in retaining the name.  I don't particularly care much whether they retain the name or not.  This is more an opportunity for pseudo moral preening than it is about any sort of "hate."  Is anybody really "hating" or disparaging Redskins any more than they are Cowboys, or Irish, etc, etc.

the fact that you are even equating the Redskins with the Cowboys, pretty much proves you can't trust the masses.

It boils down to whether you think the name is a pejorative or not, much as with any other identifying word.  If you associate the word Redskin with negative things, then it's a pejorative, if not, it's not.  If you associated the word Irish with negative things, it'd be a pejorative.  There's a lot of phony outrage that is nothing more than transparent status signaling.

So if I think the "N" word is not negative it is ok to use.  Irish are people from Ireland.  A Redskin is a derogatory term for Native Americans.  They aren't any where close to the same thing.  Again, the fact that you think they are is the reason you can't trust the masses on these things.

  Has the "N" word ever been anything other than a derogatory term? If so, when? The problem is whether a term is deemed to be derogatory seems to be rather fluid. The term probably wasn't seen as derogatory when the team was named. What would happen if some people (for example) started referring to gays as "cowboys" or "broncos" or "eagles"? Do those teams need to change their names?

The N word can be much more than a derogatory term, like when used within circles of the African American community it can be a term of endearment or many other things.....we all have seen it or heard it.

  That's not what I'm talking about.

[Mencius]

Depends on who you associate with, I suppose. the US still has skinheads, too, but their beliefs are hardly as popular as they were even twenty years ago (except, perhaps, among Dan Snyder supporters).

Here we have the kind of total non sequitur that adds nothing to the conversation.  It's about as relevant as saying the US still has sniveling, PC cowards, too, but their beliefs are hardly as popular as they were even twenty years ago (except, perhaps, among effete Dan Snyder critics.)

Please try to stay on topic.

One of those is an example. One of those is you using my post to articulate a confusing blend of race-based paranoia, masculinity questioning, and anti government sentiment.

Giving a hyperbolic counter-example to your obvious attempt at disqualifying the views of those who disagree with you by associating them with a despised group merely shows it for the nasty and disingenuous tactic that it was, particularly since the example you used of skinheads in the US had nothing to do with using 'f*gs' as a term for cigarettes in the UK.  It was a complete non-sequitur used solely to associate skinheads with those who disagree with you.

Anyway, I fail to see how understanding how something might be considered offensive to others is, in any way, a bad thing.

Nobody has anything against empathy or compassion.  This is about interpretations of whether the team moniker Redskins is pejorative or not, a matter on which there is disagreement, but one in which the vast majority of people don't view it as a pejorative, and wish for the team to keep the name.  Which brings up the larger issue here; just who decides what is or is not acceptable speech?  Who decides what is or is not offensive? 

If I disagree with someone about whether something is offensive or not, I don't want them imposing their interpretations on me, and vice-versa.  That really is the crux of it.  I don't much care whether they change their name or not.

As to the Skins, though.  My feeling is that the word is not in use except as the team moniker, and in that usage, the word portrays them positively.