ESPN Redskin Name Article

[Lanky Livingston]

Come on, Ax. Some of us read this site at work.

 

[Ax]

Come on, Ax. Some of us read this site at work.

Come on what?

 

[Om]

....At the end of the day, if the name is offensive to even one person, shouldn't we consider changing it?

In a word, no. You can find one person who finds ANYTHING offensive. Is that how society should work?

To me this has always been an intractable question. There are simply too many variables ...

- who gets to define "offensive"?
- against what standard?
- who is the arbiter of that standard?
- IS there a standard?
- should there BE a standard?
- if there is, is that standard immutable or does it change with time?
- what period of time?
- who gets to decide what period of time is?
- does society get to decide if/when an "offended" party is "offended" enough to force something like a sports team name change?
- should only the "offended party" get to decide?
- if so, what percentage of the offended party decides?
- who gets to be IN the "offended party" group that decides--full blooded? half? quarter? less?
- does society have a right to ban wordsl?
- a duty?
- should it?
- would we want to live in it if it did?

You get the drift.

 

[Goaldeje]

This is for Ax:

NSFW:

[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dF1NUposXVQ[/media]

 

[Ax]

A word made more damning, and powerful, by being forbidden, than it ever was, or would have been, previously.

If the owners of this site wish me to remove it, I will.

 

[Ax]

This is for Ax:

NSFW:

[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dF1NUposXVQ[/media]

Whose job involves coming to this site during work?

Edit: BTW, Didn't catch the link to the video in your post. Only showed up when I quoted you.

 

[Om]

Using a word in context---not as a slur directed AT anyone---is never a problem.

Glad we're sensitive to the issue, but unless I'm seriously missing something, we're good here.

*

Edit: in the interest of NOT having anyone's BGO experience soured by a work filter issue resulting in employment drama, I've added "that word" to the in-house filter here. In a conversational, societal sense, I stand by the distinction between using a word as a slur and using it in its neutral sense. If it helps our members use this platform in a practical (i.e., at work) sense, however, we will take advantage of the built-in profanity filters.

 

[Lanky Livingston]

watch this:

I'm offended by Om's post. Should he change it even though 99% of the BGO community will think I'm nuts and its not offensive?

We cant cater to a certain few or else bullying starts to become "the way" that people try to get things done.

But you're not offended by Om's post. And even if you were legitmately offended by Om's post, his post would not be on all sorts of merchandise & clothing all over the country, constantly reminding you of it. And his post would not be talked about on ESPN or NFL Network. You're comparing apples to jet engines here, bud.

 

[Om]

Are you saying my post isn't sponge-worthy?

I'm offended.

 

[Lanky Livingston]

In a word, no. You can find one person who finds ANYTHING offensive. Is that how society should work?

To me this has always been an intractable question. There are simply too many variables ...

- who gets to define "offensive"?
- against what standard?
- who is the arbiter of that standard?
- IS there a standard?
- should there BE a standard?
- if there is, is that standard immutable or does it change with time?
- what period of time?
- who gets to decide what period of time is?
- does society get to decide if/when an "offended" party is "offended" enough to force something like a sports team name change?
- should only the "offended party" get to decide?
- if so, what percentage of the offended party decides?
- who gets to be IN the "offended party" group that decides--full blooded? half? quarter? less?
- does society have a right to ban wordsl?
- a duty?
- should it?
- would we want to live in it if it did?

You get the drift.

Right; but most people that find something offensive can effectively eliminate that thing from their lives with or without complaining about it. For example if someone finds Chris Rock to be offensive, they don't watch Chris Rock. When the pejorative appears all over the region on clothing, billboards & other signs, the TV, etc., its hard to escape from it. And many will just dismiss it as PC nonsense or something, but I personally know a lot of non-Native Americans who are offended by the team's name. Mayor Gray is not the only one.

You've also got to understand people's context as well - we are die-hard Redskins fans, who's whole week will be effected positively or negatively by what the scoreboard says, and results can tarnish our entire winter if they're not good. We bleed burgundy. Some people don't - they don't even like football. THere is just this massive-marketing machine that throws out a racial slur (in their opinion, mind you) everywhere and anywhere they go. Context does not matter, nor does team history.

Finally, I'll ask you a question in return: will you root for the Burgundy & Gold Washington Warriors any less than you did the Washington Redskins? Are you that tied to the name? We always say we "bleed burgundy & gold;" its the team that we support, not the name. At least in my opinion.

 

[tshile]

my job involves coming here and poking you ingrates with a stick.
my last performance review was pretty good. got a raise.

 

[Lanky Livingston]

Are you saying my post isn't sponge-worthy?

I'm offended.

Heh.

I am?

Not to boost his ego or anything but OM is a pretty respected guy in our community and has his own site where you can read about his beliefs. To say he doesnt reach the same amount of people as Redskins merchandise is true but what does that really matter if I am offended? It can be my small town of 50 and that is all that matters.

And I also dont think that Indians are legitimately offended. Have you seen the casinos they have now that have the neon teepees, headdresses, etc scattered around the country making them millions of dollars? Why would they build stuff like THAT if they want to preserve the indian culture and name?

Yes, you are. And Mike, preserving the Native American culture and name (? - don't really get that one) is a different issue altogether, as is building casinos. You can't just lump a bunch of issues that the Native American's faced together and write them all off at once. If we do that, might as well just throw the whole trail of tears thing in there. Heck, why not all of it. Just take the reservations back, because they're building casinos!

 

[Om]

You're entitled to your opinion, LL. You don't have a right to change mine or anyone else's though. You can try to educate us if you think we're misguided, but it falls on you to also try to listen and learn yourself.

Who is "right?" There's no way to answer that.

In MY opinion, the Redskins name issue comes up every few years when some grandstanding social wannabe uses it to get some attention. This latest round is no different from a hald dozen rounds I've seen in my adult lifetime. I think it's going to slip by the wayside again ... and probably pop up again at some point.

I'm okay with that. Social change on meaningful issues come when a society at large gets passionately and consistenly behind them ... public opinion ... TRUE public opinion ... becomes a movement. Movements affect change. Not isolated, fractious, too-often self-serving pockets of individuals.

If and when the Redskins brand issue gets sufficient legs to go from occasional soapbox fodder to actual movement ... we'll all know it. Time has a way of deciding when something is ripe to pluck ... or not. If and when that day comes, I'll share my personal feelings about it then, in context, and move on with life.

And yes, I'd root for the team even they changed it to something insultingly stupid like "Wizards." But it's not about that. It's about WHY that change would happen.

 

[Lanky Livingston]

You're entitled to your opinion, LL. You don't have a right to change mine or anyone else's though. You can try to educate us if you think we're misguided, but it falls on you to also try to listen and learn yourself.

Who is "right?" There's no way to answer that.

In MY opinion, the Redskins name issue comes up every few years when some grandstanding social wannabe uses it to get some attention. This latest round is no different from a hald dozen rounds I've seen in my adult lifetime. I think it's going to slip by the wayside again ... and probably pop up again at some point.

I'm okay with that. Social change on meaningful issues come when a society at large gets passionately and consistenly behind them ... public opinion ... TRUE public opinion ... becomes a movement. Movements affect change. Not isolated, fractious, too-often self-serving pockets of individuals.

If and when the Redskins brand issue gets sufficient legs to go from occasional soapbox fodder to actual movement ... we'll all know it. Time has a way of deciding when something is ripe to pluck ... or not. If and when that day comes, I'll share my personal feelings about it then, in context, and move on with life.

And yes, I'd root for the team even they changed it to something insultingly stupid like "Wizards." But it's not about that. It's about WHY that change would happen.

Yes, we're all allowed to have our opinions, which is one of the reasons this is a great country. Included in that is those offended by the name. Personally, I think the name will eventually change, whether I like it or not; I think the social change you speak of is coming.

Maybe because I've gotten older, but I spent many years not particularly willing to budge on the name issue at all; it wasn't until fairly recently I started to realize how widespread those who take offense to the name are. Do we discount a chunk of the US population because they are not Native American? Maybe the country IS too PC, but that's the way things are going.

I'm not trying to change anyone's mind, I'm simply pointing out what I feel are the reasons someone might want to change the name. That's it.

 

[Lanky Livingston]

name as in culture..it wasnt hard to follow along with that.

and no, Jaimie. Just because YOU dont think its relevant or comparable doesnt make it the truth. Its a matter of perspective and I am not going to let a small percentage of a culture that is a shell of its former self dictate what my favorite team does.

PS - I can lump whatever I want in to whatever shell I want to as well. I grew up on a reservation and now live by several indian casinos ran by different tribes. I know what I am talking about so take a breather with that.

Tax free casinos..where they get a check every single month for doing NOTHING if they register and can prove they are 1/16 of that tribe. Yeah, the days of feeling bad for a race that is now profiting hand over fist are LONG gone.

You're certainly entitled to your opinion, Mike.

 

[Om]

I have to admit I'm always a little ... perplexed ... when I hear people talking about all the people they know who are offended by the word "Redskins."

I'm 52. I've lived and traveled a fair part of the world. I know a LOT of people from all races, cultures, nations, religions, orientations ... the gamut. I've met men and women who claim Native Amercian ancestry of varying levels of dilution. I've talked about this specific issue many times, with many of said peole. I've read all the articles. I've read the circular discussions on message boards (over and over).

And I have never, ever, even once, personally met anyone who is "offended" by the word Redskins as used in context of a sports team. I've run across people on the internet who talk about it ... who write that they or others they know "find it offensive" ... but have never actually met anyone. And it ain't like I haven't had occasion.

Is my experience unusual?

So ... what would make me sit up and take notice? That's actually quite simple. A movement to rise out of our Native American minority that was clear and unequivocal. Not a small, undefined percentage. Not the occasional dust up from a few do-gooders and/or attention-seekers---often from other social groups and/or with questionable or at least uncertain agendas. Show me a group of directly affected men and women--enough to leave no doubt about a representative majority as opposed to a few loud talkers---and I'll probably suggest it's time to pick up our sandwich boards, start emailing our congressmen, and see about starting/joining a real Movement.

To date, that simply has not been a reality though.

 

[Ax]

It's all about money. As Mike has so accurately touched on. It's ok for Indians to use any image they choose to self promote their casinos. But if anybody else does it, it's racist.

It's the same absurdity as blacks being the only people allowed to say (insert previously unfiltered word), while everybody else is supposed to only use the currently acceptable, though ignorantly stupid term, "the n-word".

And the term "Native American", while being currently acceptable, is misused, and wholly inaccurate. Which offends me.

 

[Om]

And yet, Ax, for all the excesses, there is merit in the concept. I don't think I've ever met anyone who is against eliminating racism and bigotry. The problem is identifying true incidents of it from the noise of "pop culture" (for lack of a better term), and having done so, figuring out exactly what to do about it.

Interesting ... some day, assuming a Movement arises (which if pressed I would put at maybe 50-50) it will come down to a) whether or not "the law" in our country will force Senor Snyder to change the name ... or b) Senor Snyder will see the writing on the wall and change it himself first.

Dan's many things, but financially unaware isn't one of them. I'd bet on the latter.

 

[Lanky Livingston]

It's all about money. As Mike has so accurately touched on. It's ok for Indians to use any image they choose to self promote their casinos. But if anybody else does it, it's racist.

It's the same absurdity as blacks being the only people allowed to say (insert previously unfiltered word), while everybody else is supposed to only use the currently acceptable, though ignorantly stupid term, "the n-word".

And the term "Native American", while being currently acceptable, is misused, and wholly inaccurate. Which offends me.

Not all blacks use the n-word like they do in hip hop videos. There's your distinction.

 

[Lanky Livingston]

not all indians are offended by the term redskin either. whats the point?

Its not okay to walk around saying or wearing one on your clothes, so why should the other be okay? That's the point.

I can see this is a very touchy subject, and its one that I'm not fully decided on either way. I'm going to respectfully bow out; we can revisit this issue if anything significant ever gets going.