If there are 100 Christians living in the town of Massillion, Ohio, and there are 9 Atheists living in Massillion Ohio.
If the 100 townspeople put up a Christmas scene, should the 9 Atheists take them to court to get it removed, or should the 9 Atheists respect the majority of the townspeople and just leave them alone, and turn the other way when they go past that scene ? >>
If they put up the Christmas scene on property which the atheists have helped pay to maintain with their tax dollars then they should go to court to get that ridiculous crap taken off of their mutually owned property. We have places in this world where public displays in honor and celebration of Yahweh are condoned and encouraged-- like, say, Saudi Arabia. I like to think the U.S. has advanced beyond that. If the 100 Massillions who are Christians want to consider exempting all self-proclaimed atheists from property tax obligations then we can revisit the issue.
If the scene is on private property then the atheists should just suck it up and deal.
You continue to miss the point, fitz. Not that it's a surprise at this point, as your meandering on this topic has taken us everywhere from I Dream of Jeannie, to F Troop, to the Arsenal Gunners. (I notice you never did address the proof and facts that completely blew your story about Gunners being a German-derived term meant to slander Jews).
Now, you want to bring up a completely unrelated story about workplace harassment.
Just because YOU don't know any Native Americans doesn't make the term and use of 'Redskin' any less racist. Period. Your only defense this entire time for your adamant defense of the term has been 'only 9% of Native Americans in a poll taken over a decade ago weren't offended'. That's it. Your entire premise rests upon ignoring the term and its racist history altogether and slighting a segment of the population because its 'only' a small percentage.
It's the height of hypocrisy for you to drape yourself in religious overtones (the nativity scene, Jewish heritage), but on something as trivial as a sports team name being a racist slur, you are unwilling to bend. I wonder how your Jesus would act? You claim to be a religious man - try ACTING like it you damned hypocrite.
You continue to miss the point, fitz. Not that it's a surprise at this point, as your meandering on this topic has taken us everywhere from I Dream of Jeannie, to F Troop, to the Arsenal Gunners. (I notice you never did address the proof and facts that completely blew your story about Gunners being a German-derived term meant to slander Jews).
Now, you want to bring up a completely unrelated story about workplace harassment.
Just because YOU don't know any Native Americans doesn't make the term and use of 'Redskin' any less racist. Period. Your only defense this entire time for your adamant defense of the term has been 'only 9% of Native Americans in a poll taken over a decade ago weren't offended'. That's it. Your entire premise rests upon ignoring the term and its racist history altogether and slighting a segment of the population because its 'only' a small percentage.
It's the height of hypocrisy for you to drape yourself in religious overtones (the nativity scene, Jewish heritage), but on something as trivial as a sports team name being a racist slur, you are unwilling to bend. I wonder how your Jesus would act? You claim to be a religious man - try ACTING like it you damned hypocrite. >>
My... for someone who is all about not offending others, you aren't really practicing much of what you preach.
Just curious...since you're foaming at the mouth asking these questions of others, how about you answer your own questions? Why are you so heated up over this? Especially since it's, using your own words above, "something as trivial as a sports team name..."? Are you even a Redskins fan, or is this just the particular bandwagon on which you decided to jump because that's what all the cool kids are doing? Or is it more about just stirring things up?
Even with the absurd rationale that if a slur is "only offensive to 9% of the people" that it should not be changed, I wonder.
If the name was offensive to 9% of white people that would be 22,000,000 people in the US alone. Does the fact that there are so far fewer Native Americans (for which I will not go into some of the obvious reasons this is true) make you feel good to say "If it offends them, who cares?" What year would the team's name have been changed if this were the case?
Also, keep in mind the team's sad history as the last team in the NFL to integrate African American players. While representing the nation's capital. And having to be urged and pleaded with by our politicians to do so, despite opposition from the team for many years. And the original owner's well known racism. The list goes on and the more you know, the less it feels okay to say "But I like football teams to have the same names they always had because it makes me personally happy."
The name will be changed for sure.
I am buying and trading for RC's of Wilt Chamberlain, George Mikan, Bill Russell, Oscar Robertson, Jerry West, and Bob Cousy! Don't waste your time and fees listing on ebay before getting in touch me by PM or at gregmo32@aol.com !
<< <i> My... for someone who is all about not offending others, you aren't really practicing much of what you preach. >>
Trying to equate a nationally recognized, racial slur for a football team name with a post on a forum about sports is the textbook definition of false equivalence.
<< <i>Just curious...since you're foaming at the mouth asking these questions of others, how about you answer your own questions? >>
I am hardly 'foaming at the mouth' in my defense of a race of people who are offended at a racial slur in their direction being used a sports team name'
<< <i>Why are you so heated up over this? Especially since it's, using your own words above, "something as trivial as a sports team name..."? >>
Because that sports team name represents the systemic genocide that took place in this country, and is seen by millions and millions of people every week.
<< <i>Are you even a Redskins fan, or is this just the particular bandwagon on which you decided to jump because that's what all the cool kids are doing? >>
Or maybe because it's the RIGHT thing to do? I know it must be tough for someone of your moral fiber (or lack thereof) to comprehend, but sometimes you have to do what's right, even if it's unpopular. The continued use of the racial slur Redskin is not right. Continuing to defend it (as you have chosen to do) without even mentioning WHY tells me all I need to know about you in this matter.
<< <i>Or is it more about just stirring things up? >>
Stirring things up? Change happens by stirring things up. If stirring things up is how we get this offensive term out of the NFL, then yes, sir, I am definitely stirring things up. I am sorry that you chose to defend racism and bigotry. I would think in this day and age, people would be enlightened enough to make the right, moral choice. But people like YOU, who would rather continue to oppress an entire race of people simply because you don't know anyone of said race, tells me all I need to know.
<< <i>People trying to equate 'Redskin' and 'Fighting Irish' or 'Yankee' are completely missing the point. Neither of those terms are epithets and neither carry anything resembling the negative connotation that 'Redskin' does. Just because those being disrespected make up a small minority of the American population doesn't make the insult any less egregious. It's not 'PC' to want our sports teams to be respectful of all people. Just because something has been around 'forever' doesn't mean it shouldn't change.
The Chief Wahoo and Atlanta Brave mascot are both in dire need of changing as well. These caricatures of Native Americans are highly disrespectful of an entire race. >>
Complete BS, in my opinion it pays homage and recognizes our Native American history. I have Native American blood in me and I say keep the name. I garuntee alot of these people that are complaining would shut up if money was being sent their way...
Hopefully the Redskins ownership tells everyone to F off! >>
<< <i>Even with the absurd rationale that if a slur is "only offensive to 9% of the people" that it should not be changed, I wonder.
If the name was offensive to 9% of white people that would be 22,000,000 people in the US alone. Does the fact that there are so far fewer Native Americans (for which I will not go into some of the obvious reasons this is true) make you feel good to say "If it offends them, who cares?" What year would the team's name have been changed if this were the case?
Also, keep in mind the team's sad history as the last team in the NFL to integrate African American players. While representing the nation's capital. And having to be urged and pleaded with by our politicians to do so, despite opposition from the team for many years. And the original owner's well known racism. The list goes on and the more you know, the less it feels okay to say "But I like football teams to have the same names they always had because it makes me personally happy."
The name will be changed for sure. >>
Consider this:
A vast majority of Native Americans find the term "Washington Redskins" and the logo as symbol of pride and honor (they're kinda into that). At what point do the concerns of a 9% minority outweigh the rest? If something deemed offensive should be removed/banned, regardless of support or lack thereof, then you should get behind a cause that has unanimous support of Native Americans. Removing President Jackson from the $20 bill.
So basically my kid won't be able to go to college, but at least I'll have a set where the three most expensive cards are of a player I despise ~ CDsNuts
Stown, I am for that as well. It had not come up in this forum as of yet.
I am buying and trading for RC's of Wilt Chamberlain, George Mikan, Bill Russell, Oscar Robertson, Jerry West, and Bob Cousy! Don't waste your time and fees listing on ebay before getting in touch me by PM or at gregmo32@aol.com !
They might as well just put the real Peter Gammons on the $20 bill, not that imposter.
I am buying and trading for RC's of Wilt Chamberlain, George Mikan, Bill Russell, Oscar Robertson, Jerry West, and Bob Cousy! Don't waste your time and fees listing on ebay before getting in touch me by PM or at gregmo32@aol.com !
<< <i>Even with the absurd rationale that if a slur is "only offensive to 9% of the people" that it should not be changed, I wonder.
If the name was offensive to 9% of white people that would be 22,000,000 people in the US alone. Does the fact that there are so far fewer Native Americans (for which I will not go into some of the obvious reasons this is true) make you feel good to say "If it offends them, who cares?" What year would the team's name have been changed if this were the case?
Also, keep in mind the team's sad history as the last team in the NFL to integrate African American players. While representing the nation's capital. And having to be urged and pleaded with by our politicians to do so, despite opposition from the team for many years. And the original owner's well known racism. The list goes on and the more you know, the less it feels okay to say "But I like football teams to have the same names they always had because it makes me personally happy."
The name will be changed for sure. >>
Consider this:
A vast majority of Native Americans find the term "Washington Redskins" and the logo as symbol of pride and honor (they're kinda into that). At what point do the concerns of a 9% minority outweigh the rest? If something deemed offensive should be removed/banned, regardless of support or lack thereof, then you should get behind a cause that has unanimous support of Native Americans. Removing President Jackson from the $20 bill. >>
Stown, in the history of human beings, when has there been a cause where society was unanimous in their thoughts?
With the current Indian population so fragmented, and with the knowledge that many American Indians probably do not even realize there is a Washington Redskins football team, there really is no way to get even majority support.
However, I am sure that if the vocal 9% were to travel cross country to educate and highlight the issue to all possible interested parties, that the 9% figure would rise considerably.
Surely if honoring them were a goal, don't you think there would be much better ways than using a derogatory term that reinforces a negative stereotype of American Indians being savages and closer to animals than to humans?
Good call on the $20 bill, as some Native Americans don't even want to use them. However, I believe there are more complications in making that change, as opposed to the extremely simple change of the team name...which is done routinely in sports.
People who want to keep the term Redskin continually refer to that 9%, without knowing the people behind the survey (a) never released how they gathered their data, which makes replicating the results impossible, and (b) worded the survey "As a Native American, do you find that name offensive or doesn’t it bother you?" This is not a yes or no type survey. They should have worded it 'does it offend you or does it not offend you'. They rigged the survey to get the results they wanted. Throw in that they did it via landline which younger folks traditionally have, and you have a recipe for disaster.
But, for those of you in favor of using racist slurs for team nicknames, keep on fighting for it. You only keep further proving how ignorant you chose to be.
<< <i>Stown, I am for that as well. It had not come up in this forum as of yet. >>
I asked earlier but can understand if it got lost in the chatter.
<< <i>Stown, in the history of human beings, when has there been a cause where society was unanimous in their thoughts? >>
Society as a whole? Probably zero to none. On the other hand, cultures (ie individual societies) have a long history of unanimous support for many causes that help them benefit and thrive. As a side note, I encourage dissent as it exposes dishonesty of the people in power. Would say keeps them honest but unfortunately, that's long gone.
<< <i>With the current Indian population so fragmented, and with the knowledge that many American Indians probably do not even realize there is a Washington Redskins football team, there really is no way to get even majority support.
However, I am sure that if the vocal 9% were to travel cross country to educate and highlight the issue to all possible interested parties, that the 9% figure would rise considerably >>
Dude, it's not like we're talking about the Amish; Native Americans are not forbidden to use modern technology. That vocal 9%, for the most part, is the Oneida Indian Nation. They are extremely outspoken advocates but most tribes, at least the ones I've met, view them as money grabbers and don't support them.
<< <i>Surely if honoring them were a goal, don't you think there would be much better ways than using a derogatory term that reinforces a negative stereotype of American Indians being savages and closer to animals than to humans? >>
They don't see it that way and personally, I think that would apply more to Chief Wahoo's cartoonish features than Washington's logo.
<< <i>Good call on the $20 bill, as some Native Americans don't even want to use them. However, I believe there are more complications in making that change, as opposed to the extremely simple change of the team name...which is done routinely in sports >>
Name changes have happened but to my knowledge, no owner has ever been forced to. For example, the Washington Bullets, even though the name was *always* associated with transportation, their owner didn't want to deal with the fauxrage. It's not simple because in the end, it's a private company and they have the right to keep their name, just like you have the right to express your opinion.
If he changes it, great. If he doesn't, that's great too. Having said that, if people find the term 'Washington Redskins' so offensive, vile, and demeaning, they should look at the bigger picture and focus their efforts on something much bigger IMO.
So basically my kid won't be able to go to college, but at least I'll have a set where the three most expensive cards are of a player I despise ~ CDsNuts
Focus their efforts on something bigger? I would suggest that the continued use of a racial slur in the most popular sports league in America is a pretty big deal, and the fact that you and others like you don't see it as a big deal is the entire problem to begin with. As far as the money grabber comment, where exactly is Oneida asking for a handout? What is their 'money grab' they are looking for? What would they gain from the Redskins name being changed?
The facts are, the backers of the continued use of this slur have YET to bring up anything resembling a cohesive argument for the continued use of this slur. They continue to try to spin the argument in a variety of other directions, and at no point in any of their comments bring up anything close to a defense of the term. The reason? Because there is no logical reason for the team name to exist. Period.
No, the owner is not being forced to change his name...ultimately it is his decision(or the league's). However, the people expressing their disagreement with the name has gotten more support, and times change. The owner and league simply have to weigh the amount of negative criticism for their entity to their profit making. In the end, they will end up changing it, sell the same amount of tickets they sold before...and then get to sell extra millions of dollars worth of hats and jersey's with their new logo and name.
Then they will no longer be using a term that relegates people to mascots. Being a mascot is not good...it is closer to being somebody's Bi@ch than it is to being a person.
As for the current Indian nations. They are poor...the poorest in our country. You say that surely that there are better causes than worrying about them being used as mascots...but sometimes those little victories add up.
And I am sure there are more worthy team nicknames that can be used that don't rub salt into the wound of an already conquered and impoverished group of people.
Not that hard or harmful to change a team nickname.
Quite hard to tackle on any other more worthy causes you are talking about. But jeez, if the majority of the people can't see the mascot problem(which has an extremely easy and harmless solution)...how on earth do you expect these people to be accepting of a more challenging cause?
I understand your point, skin, just disagree with the shaming aspect of it. I think the best course of action, especially in a cause one truly believes in, is to boycott. Words have more meaning when a personal sacrifice is involved. Otherwise, it's just empty words (or in this case, sore fingers from typing so much).
If anyone decides to give up the NFL until Dan Snider changes his team's name, I'll be the first to pat you on the back and give full support.
So basically my kid won't be able to go to college, but at least I'll have a set where the three most expensive cards are of a player I despise ~ CDsNuts
<< <i> Quite hard to tackle on any other more worthy causes you are talking about. But jeez, if the majority of the people can't see the mascot problem(which has an extremely easy and harmless solution)...how on earth do you expect these people to be accepting of a more challenging cause? >>
Exactly. You already have plenty of people here suggesting this call for change is inexplicably about a cash grab or hand out (despite making no connection whatsoever between those two topics). If something like a football team name is meeting this sort of resistance, and people are digging in their heels without knowing why or being able to communicate why, then what does someone like stown expect to happen?
<< <i>I understand your point, skin, just disagree with the shaming aspect of it. I think the best course of action, especially in a cause one truly believes in, is to boycott. Words have more meaning when a personal sacrifice is involved. Otherwise, it's just empty words (or in this case, sore fingers from typing so much).
If anyone decides to give up the NFL until Dan Snider changes his team's name, I'll be the first to pat you on the back and give full support. >>
<<<Come on, man. The NZ rugby team is called the 'All Blacks' because of the color of their jerseys. It's not a name that has anything to do with race. You're a smart guy- don't act stupid. >>>
That is part of my point in all of this. Very few people (if anybody) using the term Redskin are thinking about race or using it in an ill-spirited way. They are using it in reference to a football team.
Two years ago, before this movement started to take shape, if you asked 100 people on the street, which was the more offensive team nickname - Redskins or All-Blacks - I bet the majority would say All Blacks, and it would probably be by a fairly wide margin.
<< <i><<<Come on, man. The NZ rugby team is called the 'All Blacks' because of the color of their jerseys. It's not a name that has anything to do with race. You're a smart guy- don't act stupid. >>>
That is part of my point in all of this. Very few people (if anybody) using the term Redskin are thinking about race or using it in an ill-spirited way. They are using it in reference to a football team.
Two years ago, before this movement started to take shape, if you asked 100 people on the street, which was the more offensive team nickname - Redskins or All-Blacks - I bet the majority would say All Blacks, and it would probably be by a fairly wide margin. >>
I always enjoy your contributions on these boards, so I'm assuming you're just being deliberately obtuse.
Most people who use the term 'Oriental' to describe someone from Asia aren't using that term in an ill-spirited way, either. That doesn't mean you would ever use the term, or name a sports team such. If someone wanted to name a new team the 'Albuquerque Orientals' I think there'd be a fair amount of push back, even though the term isn't really pejorative.
<<<I always enjoy your contributions on these boards>>>
Thanks, and I yours.
<<<so I'm assuming you're just being deliberately obtuse.
Most people who use the term 'Oriental' to describe someone from Asia aren't using that term in an ill-spirited way, either. That doesn't mean you would ever use the term, or name a sports team such. If someone wanted to name a new team the 'Albuquerque Orientals' I think there'd be a fair amount of push back, even though the term isn't really pejorative. >>>
I agree that if somebody today tried to name a new team the Albuquerque Orientals, there would be a fair amount of blowback (not by me), but that is only a function of the world we now live in. I suspect if 80 years ago the owner decided to name his team the Washington Orientals instead of Redskins, we'd be in the same position we are today.
For me, this topic is not unlike the censorship issue involving 2 Live Crew 20 years ago. A contingent of people were up in arms because of the raunchy lyrics, even though the vast majority of those people had never before listened to the music, would never have to listen to the music, and couldn't pick Luther Campbell out of a lineup. Their goal was to prevent other people that had no intention of listening to the music from being able to listen to the music, along with preventing those people that wanted to listen to the music from enjoying the music. Similarly, the group of Native Americans that actually take pride in the Redskin name, may now see that source of pride go out the window because a bunch of people that aren't offended by the name personally are raising a stink.
<< <i> For me, this topic is not unlike the censorship issue involving 2 Live Crew 20 years ago. A contingent of people were up in arms because of the raunchy lyrics, even though the vast majority of those people had never before listened to the music, would never have to listen to the music, and couldn't pick Luther Campbell out of a lineup. Their goal was to prevent other people that had no intention of listening to the music from being able to listen to the music, along with preventing those people that wanted to listen to the music from enjoying the music. Similarly, the group of Native Americans that actually take pride in the Redskin name, may now see that source of pride go out the window because a bunch of people that aren't offended by the name personally are raising a stink. >>
But what you're talking about in regards to music is covered under the First Amendment right to free expression, and trying to equate that with a racial slur for a prominent football team name is not anywhere near equivalent.
<< <i>For me, this topic is not unlike the censorship issue involving 2 Live Crew 20 years ago. A contingent of people were up in arms because of the raunchy lyrics, even though the vast majority of those people had never before listened to the music, would never have to listen to the music, and couldn't pick Luther Campbell out of a lineup. Their goal was to prevent other people that had no intention of listening to the music from being able to listen to the music, along with preventing those people that wanted to listen to the music from enjoying the music. >>
That was Al Gore's wife, Tipper. Notice a pattern?
So basically my kid won't be able to go to college, but at least I'll have a set where the three most expensive cards are of a player I despise ~ CDsNuts
<< <i><<<I always enjoy your contributions on these boards>>>
Thanks, and I yours.
<<<so I'm assuming you're just being deliberately obtuse.
Most people who use the term 'Oriental' to describe someone from Asia aren't using that term in an ill-spirited way, either. That doesn't mean you would ever use the term, or name a sports team such. If someone wanted to name a new team the 'Albuquerque Orientals' I think there'd be a fair amount of push back, even though the term isn't really pejorative. >>>
I agree that if somebody today tried to name a new team the Albuquerque Orientals, there would be a fair amount of blowback (not by me), but that is only a function of the world we now live in. I suspect if 80 years ago the owner decided to name his team the Washington Orientals instead of Redskins, we'd be in the same position we are today.
For me, this topic is not unlike the censorship issue involving 2 Live Crew 20 years ago. A contingent of people were up in arms because of the raunchy lyrics, even though the vast majority of those people had never before listened to the music, would never have to listen to the music, and couldn't pick Luther Campbell out of a lineup. Their goal was to prevent other people that had no intention of listening to the music from being able to listen to the music, along with preventing those people that wanted to listen to the music from enjoying the music. Similarly, the group of Native Americans that actually take pride in the Redskin name, may now see that source of pride go out the window because a bunch of people that aren't offended by the name personally are raising a stink. >>
The Redskin debate is not a censorship issue; it seems weird that you would insinuate otherwise. As for the 2LC, what groups like the PMRC were arguing-- and I think they had a point-- is that if you're going to record songs about doing a train on a girl then your albums should come with some kind of label that gives the consumer some understanding of the album's lyrical content. I don't recall anyone, anywhere, ever saying that 2LCs music should be outlawed.
But that's a digression-- what this comes down to is that the Redskin name is just tacky, and having that name associated with the NFL is an embarrassment to the league. Is it the end of the world if they don't change it? No. Are there people (on both sides) blowing this issue way out of proportion? Absolutely. But that doesn't change the fundamentals.
Would you ever call someone a 'Redskin'? Think about that. If you were dating a Native American, and were talking about her to your friends, would you ever say 'Yeah, she was kind of offended by that new Lone Ranger movie, since, you know-- she's a redskin'. Or, if this seems contrived, is there any context in which you would actually refer to a Native American as a 'redskin'? If so, when? If not, why not? And even if you argue that there ARE contexts in which you would refer to a human being from this term, do you agree that other people who choose not to have good reason not to?
<< <i>For me, this topic is not unlike the censorship issue involving 2 Live Crew 20 years ago. A contingent of people were up in arms because of the raunchy lyrics, even though the vast majority of those people had never before listened to the music, would never have to listen to the music, and couldn't pick Luther Campbell out of a lineup. Their goal was to prevent other people that had no intention of listening to the music from being able to listen to the music, along with preventing those people that wanted to listen to the music from enjoying the music. >>
That was Al Gore's wife, Tipper. Notice a pattern? >>
Is this the point in the dialogue where we're all supposed to whine in unison that 'It's always those gosh-darned liberals who are trying to tell us what to do?' Or does that stage come later?
So it's okay for people to throw out the racist card (be it direct or implied, which has been done several times) but when it comes to identifying the ringleader censoring 2 Live Crew? WELL, NOW YOU'VE GONE TOO FAR!
So basically my kid won't be able to go to college, but at least I'll have a set where the three most expensive cards are of a player I despise ~ CDsNuts
<< <i>So it's okay for people to throw out the racist card (be it direct or implied, which has been done several times) but when it comes to identifying the ringleader censoring 2 Live Crew? WELL, NOW YOU'VE GONE TOO FAR!
>>
But she didn't attempt to 'censor' them. She (along with others) wanted explicit content labeled. For someone who claims to be such a stickler for facts, you really throw it to the wind in a failing attempt to prop your own defense of a racist slur.
So basically my kid won't be able to go to college, but at least I'll have a set where the three most expensive cards are of a player I despise ~ CDsNuts
<<<Would you ever call someone a 'Redskin'? Think about that. If you were dating a Native American, and were talking about her to your friends, would you ever say 'Yeah, she was kind of offended by that new Lone Ranger movie, since, you know-- she's a redskin'. Or, if this seems contrived, is there any context in which you would actually refer to a Native American as a 'redskin'? If so, when? If not, why not? And even if you argue that there ARE contexts in which you would refer to a human being from this term, do you agree that other people who choose not to have good reason not to?>>>
No, I wouldn't use the term, but not because I think it is slur that cannot and should not be used. I wouldn't use it because it is not part of my lexicon. In my world, "Redskin" refers to "the football team in Washington" and that is it. I'd like to consider myself a fairly educated person, but I've already admitted in previous posts that before this "controversy" began, I had no idea it was a racial slur. Perhaps that is due to the fact that I live in an area with very few Native Americans. In all honesty, if I was trying to disparage a Native American either to their face or in the context you've described above, I don't know what word I would use, but I'd have to go really far down the list before I came up with Redskin.
Now that I know it is a racial slur, I will continue not to use the word, but it doesn't change my view about whether Dan Snyder should change the name of his football team. If the word is such a taboo word and has been for decades, I then refer back to the OP's question: Why is the Washington Redskins name controversy only JUST NOW making news? My feeling (which based on polls that have been conducted and articles written seems to be supported by the very people against whom the slur is directed) is that this a fairly contrived controversy mostly spearheaded by people outside of the Native American race that feel empowered by the current cultural climate to effect change, even if the people they are trying to help aren't asking for their help.
<< <i>For me, this topic is not unlike the censorship issue involving 2 Live Crew 20 years ago. >>
The more controversy and censorship that 2 Live Crew saw, the more money they earned. Is that really what's going on with the Washington Redskins? Does their popularity and revenue really increase the more that other people disapprove of their name?
<< <i>For me, this topic is not unlike the censorship issue involving 2 Live Crew 20 years ago. >>
The more controversy and censorship that 2 Live Crew saw, the more money they earned. Is that really what's going on with the Washington Redskins? Does their popularity and revenue really increase the more that other people disapprove of their name? >>
No, but the people who are continuing to defend the use of this racist term are grasping at straws trying to defend their stance, and this is the latest example. First it was the 'liberal PC police' trying to enforce their ways on the population, now it's trying to compare it to a first amendment issue. The backers of 'Redskin' use really have no shame.
<< <i><<<Would you ever call someone a 'Redskin'? Think about that. If you were dating a Native American, and were talking about her to your friends, would you ever say 'Yeah, she was kind of offended by that new Lone Ranger movie, since, you know-- she's a redskin'. Or, if this seems contrived, is there any context in which you would actually refer to a Native American as a 'redskin'? If so, when? If not, why not? And even if you argue that there ARE contexts in which you would refer to a human being from this term, do you agree that other people who choose not to have good reason not to?>>>
No, I wouldn't use the term, but not because I think it is slur that cannot and should not be used. I wouldn't use it because it is not part of my lexicon. In my world, "Redskin" refers to "the football team in Washington" and that is it. I'd like to consider myself a fairly educated person, but I've already admitted in previous posts that before this "controversy" began, I had no idea it was a racial slur. Perhaps that is due to the fact that I live in an area with very few Native Americans. In all honesty, if I was trying to disparage a Native American either to their face or in the context you've described above, I don't know what word I would use, but I'd have to go really far down the list before I came up with Redskin.
Now that I know it is a racial slur, I will continue not to use the word, but it doesn't change my view about whether Dan Snyder should change the name of his football team. If the word is such a taboo word and has been for decades, I then refer back to the OP's question: Why is the Washington Redskins name controversy only JUST NOW making news? My feeling (which based on polls that have been conducted and articles written seems to be supported by the very people against whom the slur is directed) is that this a fairly contrived controversy mostly spearheaded by people outside of the Native American race that feel empowered by the current cultural climate to effect change, even if the people they are trying to help aren't asking for their help. >>
I remember this going on in the 80's...not specifically Redskins, but the whole idea of using Indians and Indian caricatures as mascots.
As for referring to people, really the only adjectives used to describe a person should be man, woman, child...or more appropriately, their name. If the need arises to use an alternative, then friend, sir, gentleman...or any other word of a positive nature should be used. That is respect.
Being a mascot is not a sign of respect. It is being somebody's bit@ch, or pet.
Whether or not ALL Indians know that, or realize that, doesn't make the ones who do see it, wrong in their assertions.
On that point, look at some of the Indian names:
Braves...not slang or disrespectful. Blackhawks....simply the name of a tribe from the area. Not slang Indians....simply the whole race. Not slang. Chiefs....name of the guy in charge. Not slang.
Redskins...A slang term. Origins to describe skin color. Other origins as a disrespectful term. Either way you look at it, it is disrespectful when using skin color to describe someone, and so of course is using a demeaning term to describe someone.
Really, someone could find fault in using Indians as mascots in all of the above instances...however, Redskins is different than the other ones, and is more disrespectful.
<< <i> No, but the people who are continuing to defend the use of this racist term are grasping at straws trying to defend their stance, and this is the latest example. First it was the 'liberal PC police' trying to enforce their ways on the population, now it's trying to compare it to a first amendment issue. The backers of 'Redskin' use really have no shame. >>
No one is grasping at straws. There's just 10% of the population who never understand the reality of the situation.
As Mike Schmidt once said, 'For those who understand, no explanation is needed. For those who don't understand, no explanation will suffice."
<< <i>My feeling (which based on polls that have been conducted and articles written seems to be supported by the very people against whom the slur is directed) is that this a fairly contrived controversy mostly spearheaded by people outside of the Native American race that feel empowered by the current cultural climate to effect change, even if the people they are trying to help aren't asking for their help. >>
Well said, jdip.
Their tactic, shaming, is the epidemy of being lazy because it doesn't change a person's opinion but rather an attempt to make them feel embarrassed of having said opinion. That's why it's the foundation of SA's rules; generally speaking, it's nothing but loud noises from uninformed pawns. Rather than regurgitating the flavor of the month talking points, stop being a keyboard warrior and go take direct action. The only thing stopping you from doing this is yourself.
If it's a cause you truly believe in, get outside, go protest, and boycott the NFL to make your voice heard. Posting on a sports card forum does absolutely *nothing*.
So basically my kid won't be able to go to college, but at least I'll have a set where the three most expensive cards are of a player I despise ~ CDsNuts
I know someone who is bi, who was very offended by Chick-Fil-A's stance on something.
This person was enraged, joining the bandwagon about boycotting Chick-Fil-A.
A month later the person was drastically craving a chicken sandwhich from said store.
She bought it.
Again, I'd love to peek into the collections of all these people supporting a ban on a word being used in a non-offensive way, and see if everything Washington Redskins from their collection is thrown in the garbage. If they really feel that strongly about these ill-advised convictions, then let's see them put up or shut up.
Redskins...A slang term. Origins to describe skin color. Other origins as a disrespectful term. Either way you look at it, it is disrespectful when using skin color to describe someone,. >>
Not true. I hear people all the time trying to remember the name of someone saying.......
Said person is....... A. Tall B. Dark Skinned C. Overweight D. Polite E. Hard working
Oh yeah, that's Mean Joe Green you're talking about !!
Nothing offensive at all in that discourse.
Just face it 1985fan. You are so off course in your thinking. The majority of people are sensible, but there's always 10% that just never get it.
Edmund, you are the one who doesn't get it. You continue to bring up analogies that have NO BASIS whatsoever to the racial slur 'Redskin'.
Chick Fil A isn't an offensive term, so bringing it up proves, once again, that you don't know how to compare. As far as your comparison in trying to describe someone, in trying to describe a Native American, would you EVER say 'he was a redskin'? Of course you wouldn't. Be that as it may, IT DOESN'T MATTER!
Redskin offends some Native Americans (as it should). It's origins are racist in tone, and, as I have said over and over again, just because a majority of people don't agree doesn't make any less offensive!
What are you people going to rail against next when the Redskins team name is changed? What fight that has no bearing on your everyday life are you going to take up next? The 'war' on Christmas? I think you folks should stop getting your talking points from certain media outlets and work for progressive change, instead of fighting against it.
What are you people going to rail against next when the Redskins team name is changed? . >>
Your credibility(which some here say you never had) continues to go down the toilet. You have no way of knowing the future. Last I heard, the owner of the team has no intentions of changing it..
What are you people going to rail against next when the Redskins team name is changed? . >>
Your credibility(which some here say you never had) continues to go down the toilet. You have no way of knowing the future. Last I heard, the owner of the team has no intentions of changing it.. >>
When the commissioner and the league in general wants something, it gets it. This will be no different. Snyder will be forced to relent under the increasing scrutiny of the media, the fans, and overwhelming support for the changing of this racist slur. When that happens (and it WILL happen), what are you going to do? Whine and complain about the 'good ole days' when you could toss around racist terms without any repercussions?
Honestly, I can't believe anyone in this day and age truly believes that the term "redskin" is not at least a disparaging term used to describe Native-Americans. As boopotts said, even if the team name doesn't really bother you personally, there is no question that in the denotative and connotative sense of the word, and as it appears and is described in the English lexicon, that it is not a complimentary term.
I grew up in Queens, NY, and the St. John's college basketball team was known as the "Red Men" when I was a kid. Sometime later the team name was chnaged to the "Red Storm" and as I recall, there was some resistance to the change at the time. But now, almost a quarter century later, no one even cares.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
91% of Native Americans across 48 states have no problem with the term Redskin.
You all have bought the lie, hook, line, and sinker.
The 91% can't believe you have a problem with a word they feel is not bothersome.
If you ever sat down to eat with 91% of these Native American Indians across these great 48 states, and you got up to explain to them how the term Redskin is offensive, they would laugh you out of the building.
Sort of like how we're all laughing at this right now......but you still don't get it, and that's even funnier
<< <i>91% of Native Americans across 48 states have no problem with the term Redskin.
You all have bought the lie, hook, line, and sinker.
The 91% can't believe you have a problem with a word they feel is not bothersome.
If you ever sat down to eat with 91% of these Native American Indians across these great 48 states, and you got up to explain to them how the term Redskin is offensive, they would laugh you out of the building.
Sort of like how we're all laughing at this right now......but you still don't get it, and that's even funnier >>
Really? Curious how you know that. I bet you can be lead to some that will disagree with that
Like I said before, calling/referring to anyone based on their skin color is of poor taste. The only time that is really necessary would be for a crime investigation to get every piece of information possible.
Using a term that is derogatory makes it even worse.
The simple fact is this— the name of the Redskins does not have any racial intent. On the contrary, when fans holler “Let's go Redskins!” they are making completely harmless, even positive statements, about themselves and the team they support. But that doesn’t matter to the PC brigade, which is now so cut adrift from the real world inhabited by the rest of us that it cares not one jot for the context in which words are spoken.
The war of words against any team or informal community that speaks in a way decreed “inappropriate” by the self-elected guardians of correctness shows how imperious PC can be.
Skin, Grote, and 1985fan have all fallen into the PC trap. The term Washington Redskins has never been used in the history of the NFL in a derogatory way towards Native Americans. Yet the PC heads have conned you to believe it has. You quite simply do not understand context, and how important context is. On top of that, real historical data shows that 91% of Native Americans across 48 states disagree with your PC silliness.
Please keep telling us how Redskin is offensive though. It is hilarious listening to these funny banters of yours.
<< <i>The simple fact is this— the name of the Redskins does not have any racial intent. On the contrary, when fans holler “Let's go Redskins!” they are making completely harmless, even positive statements, about themselves and the team they support. But that doesn’t matter to the PC brigade, which is now so cut adrift from the real world inhabited by the rest of us that it cares not one jot for the context in which words are spoken.
The war of words against any team or informal community that speaks in a way decreed “inappropriate” by the self-elected guardians of correctness shows how imperious PC can be.
Skin, Grote, and 1985fan have all fallen into the PC trap. The term Washington Redskins has never been used in the history of the NFL in a derogatory way towards Native Americans. Yet the PC heads have conned you to believe it has. You quite simply do not understand context, and how important context is. On top of that, real historical data shows that 91% of Native Americans across 48 states disagree with your PC silliness.
Please keep telling us how Redskin is offensive though. It is hilarious listening to these funny banters of yours. >>
So then based on what YOU are saying, you would no problem introducing a group of Asian businessmen, and saying, "I would like you to meet my yellow skinned associates?"
Or a group of American Indians, "these are my Redskin buyers of the property."
Those aren't meant in derogatory ways either...you are simply describing the group of people.
You don't understand, the derogatory aspect is simply the use of it...it is tacky and of poor taste to refer to people because of their skin color...regardless of intent. Like 85fan said, just because you are conditioned to it and used to it, doesn't mean it is right.
Please show me again how you got 2.9 Million american Indians opinion on the matter, when you keep putting this 9% figure out there like it is gospel.
You don't understand, the derogatory aspect is simply the use of it...it is tacky and of poor taste to refer to people because of their skin color...regardless of intent. Like 85fan said, just because you are conditioned to it and used to it, doesn't mean it is right. . >>
Do you actually believe what you are writing ???
Modeling agencies use the terms "light-skinned", "dark skinned", "Hispanic like skin", "dark skinned" "oily skinned", and many other skin terms in order to describe the type of models that are needed for a shoot. People used the term "Redskin" to describe a certain type of people.
My Jewish relatives describe the Jews in Brazil as "dark-skinned" Jews. They describe the Jews of Scandinavia as "light-skinned" Jews.
The description of one's skin color, or tone, is used in society every day of the week. You can't watch a woman's beauty commercial without women talking about their skin tone, and other ladies skin tones. But you say we can't ever talk about people's skin tone ????
Yet the PC police has convinced you that whenever you use a persons skin tone to describe them, that is a big no-no.
Please try to learn the meaning of context. It will serve you well.
<< <i> Do you actually believe what you are writing ???
Modeling agencies use the terms "light-skinned", "dark skinned", "Hispanic like skin", "dark skinned" "oily skinned", and many other skin terms in order to describe the type of models that are needed for a shoot. People used the term "Redskin" to describe a certain type of people. >>
Are you seriously that desperate to prop your failing argument that you would equate 'light skinned' and 'Redskin'? Good gravy I guess there's no depth to which your standards for debate will sink in order to try to defend your inherently flawed premise.
<< <i>My Jewish relatives describe the Jews in Brazil as "dark-skinned" Jews. They describe the Jews of Scandinavia as "light-skinned" Jews. >>
And NEITHER of those are anywhere near akin to calling a Native American a 'Redskin', and the fact that you are trying to equate the two proves just how desensitized you are to the racial slur itself.
<< <i>The description of one's skin color, or tone, is used in society every day of the week. You can't watch a woman's beauty commercial without women talking about their skin tone, and other ladies skin tones. But you say we can't ever talk about people's skin tone ???? >>
'Redskin' isn't talking about a Native American's skin tone, it's an inherently offensive racial slur. Your continued insistence on avoiding this is perplexing.
<< <i>Yet the PC police has convinced you that whenever you use a persons skin tone to describe them, that is a big no-no. >>
That's not happening here, and who is this mythical PC police force you and your bigoted brethren keep referring to?
<< <i>Please try to learn the meaning of context. It will serve you well. >>
I'd ask the same of you, but you aren't interested in it. You're interested in anything OTHER than actually debating the topic at hand - which is the offensive racial SLUR 'Redskin' being tossed around like it's no big deal.
Fitz, what would you personally lose if the Redskins team was renamed tomorrow? Why are you so adamant in trying to perpetuate the use of a racial term in everyday language?
Comments
<< <i>Question for wrestlingcardking.
If there are 100 Christians living in the town of Massillion, Ohio, and there are 9 Atheists living in Massillion Ohio.
If the 100 townspeople put up a Christmas scene, should the 9 Atheists take them to court to get it removed, or should the 9 Atheists respect the majority
of the townspeople and just leave them alone, and turn the other way when they go past that scene ? >>
If they put up the Christmas scene on property which the atheists have helped pay to maintain with their tax dollars then they should go to court to get that ridiculous crap taken off of their mutually owned property. We have places in this world where public displays in honor and celebration of Yahweh are condoned and encouraged-- like, say, Saudi Arabia. I like to think the U.S. has advanced beyond that. If the 100 Massillions who are Christians want to consider exempting all self-proclaimed atheists from property tax obligations then we can revisit the issue.
If the scene is on private property then the atheists should just suck it up and deal.
Sorry to hear you have a hardened heart.
<< <i>Here is how racial slurs are actually carried out in society (unlike the topic at hand) >>
You continue to miss the point, fitz. Not that it's a surprise at this point, as your meandering on this topic has taken us everywhere from I Dream of Jeannie, to F Troop, to the Arsenal Gunners. (I notice you never did address the proof and facts that completely blew your story about Gunners being a German-derived term meant to slander Jews).
Now, you want to bring up a completely unrelated story about workplace harassment.
Just because YOU don't know any Native Americans doesn't make the term and use of 'Redskin' any less racist. Period. Your only defense this entire time for your adamant defense of the term has been 'only 9% of Native Americans in a poll taken over a decade ago weren't offended'. That's it. Your entire premise rests upon ignoring the term and its racist history altogether and slighting a segment of the population because its 'only' a small percentage.
It's the height of hypocrisy for you to drape yourself in religious overtones (the nativity scene, Jewish heritage), but on something as trivial as a sports team name being a racist slur, you are unwilling to bend. I wonder how your Jesus would act? You claim to be a religious man - try ACTING like it you damned hypocrite.
<< <i>
<< <i>Here is how racial slurs are actually carried out in society (unlike the topic at hand) >>
You continue to miss the point, fitz. Not that it's a surprise at this point, as your meandering on this topic has taken us everywhere from I Dream of Jeannie, to F Troop, to the Arsenal Gunners. (I notice you never did address the proof and facts that completely blew your story about Gunners being a German-derived term meant to slander Jews).
Now, you want to bring up a completely unrelated story about workplace harassment.
Just because YOU don't know any Native Americans doesn't make the term and use of 'Redskin' any less racist. Period. Your only defense this entire time for your adamant defense of the term has been 'only 9% of Native Americans in a poll taken over a decade ago weren't offended'. That's it. Your entire premise rests upon ignoring the term and its racist history altogether and slighting a segment of the population because its 'only' a small percentage.
It's the height of hypocrisy for you to drape yourself in religious overtones (the nativity scene, Jewish heritage), but on something as trivial as a sports team name being a racist slur, you are unwilling to bend. I wonder how your Jesus would act? You claim to be a religious man - try ACTING like it you damned hypocrite. >>
My... for someone who is all about not offending others, you aren't really practicing much of what you preach.
Just curious...since you're foaming at the mouth asking these questions of others, how about you answer your own questions?
Why are you so heated up over this? Especially since it's, using your own words above, "something as trivial as a sports team name..."?
Are you even a Redskins fan, or is this just the particular bandwagon on which you decided to jump because that's what all the cool kids are doing?
Or is it more about just stirring things up?
RIP Mom- 1932-2012
If the name was offensive to 9% of white people that would be 22,000,000 people in the US alone. Does the fact that there are so far fewer Native Americans (for which I will not go into some of the obvious reasons this is true) make you feel good to say "If it offends them, who cares?" What year would the team's name have been changed if this were the case?
Also, keep in mind the team's sad history as the last team in the NFL to integrate African American players. While representing the nation's capital. And having to be urged and pleaded with by our politicians to do so, despite opposition from the team for many years. And the original owner's well known racism. The list goes on and the more you know, the less it feels okay to say "But I like football teams to have the same names they always had because it makes me personally happy."
The name will be changed for sure.
Don't waste your time and fees listing on ebay before getting in touch me by PM or at gregmo32@aol.com !
<< <i>
My... for someone who is all about not offending others, you aren't really practicing much of what you preach.
>>
Trying to equate a nationally recognized, racial slur for a football team name with a post on a forum about sports is the textbook definition of false equivalence.
<< <i>Just curious...since you're foaming at the mouth asking these questions of others, how about you answer your own questions? >>
I am hardly 'foaming at the mouth' in my defense of a race of people who are offended at a racial slur in their direction being used a sports team name'
<< <i>Why are you so heated up over this? Especially since it's, using your own words above, "something as trivial as a sports team name..."? >>
Because that sports team name represents the systemic genocide that took place in this country, and is seen by millions and millions of people every week.
<< <i>Are you even a Redskins fan, or is this just the particular bandwagon on which you decided to jump because that's what all the cool kids are doing? >>
Or maybe because it's the RIGHT thing to do? I know it must be tough for someone of your moral fiber (or lack thereof) to comprehend, but sometimes you have to do what's right, even if it's unpopular. The continued use of the racial slur Redskin is not right. Continuing to defend it (as you have chosen to do) without even mentioning WHY tells me all I need to know about you in this matter.
<< <i>Or is it more about just stirring things up? >>
Stirring things up? Change happens by stirring things up. If stirring things up is how we get this offensive term out of the NFL, then yes, sir, I am definitely stirring things up. I am sorry that you chose to defend racism and bigotry. I would think in this day and age, people would be enlightened enough to make the right, moral choice. But people like YOU, who would rather continue to oppress an entire race of people simply because you don't know anyone of said race, tells me all I need to know.
<< <i>
<< <i>People trying to equate 'Redskin' and 'Fighting Irish' or 'Yankee' are completely missing the point. Neither of those terms are epithets and neither carry anything resembling the negative connotation that 'Redskin' does. Just because those being disrespected make up a small minority of the American population doesn't make the insult any less egregious. It's not 'PC' to want our sports teams to be respectful of all people. Just because something has been around 'forever' doesn't mean it shouldn't change.
The Chief Wahoo and Atlanta Brave mascot are both in dire need of changing as well. These caricatures of Native Americans are highly disrespectful of an entire race. >>
Complete BS, in my opinion it pays homage and recognizes our Native American history. I have Native American blood in me and I say keep the name. I garuntee alot of these people that are complaining would shut up if money was being sent their way...
Hopefully the Redskins ownership tells everyone to F off! >>
+1
<< <i>Even with the absurd rationale that if a slur is "only offensive to 9% of the people" that it should not be changed, I wonder.
If the name was offensive to 9% of white people that would be 22,000,000 people in the US alone. Does the fact that there are so far fewer Native Americans (for which I will not go into some of the obvious reasons this is true) make you feel good to say "If it offends them, who cares?" What year would the team's name have been changed if this were the case?
Also, keep in mind the team's sad history as the last team in the NFL to integrate African American players. While representing the nation's capital. And having to be urged and pleaded with by our politicians to do so, despite opposition from the team for many years. And the original owner's well known racism. The list goes on and the more you know, the less it feels okay to say "But I like football teams to have the same names they always had because it makes me personally happy."
The name will be changed for sure. >>
Consider this:
A vast majority of Native Americans find the term "Washington Redskins" and the logo as symbol of pride and honor (they're kinda into that). At what point do the concerns of a 9% minority outweigh the rest? If something deemed offensive should be removed/banned, regardless of support or lack thereof, then you should get behind a cause that has unanimous support of Native Americans. Removing President Jackson from the $20 bill.
Don't waste your time and fees listing on ebay before getting in touch me by PM or at gregmo32@aol.com !
Don't waste your time and fees listing on ebay before getting in touch me by PM or at gregmo32@aol.com !
<< <i>
<< <i>Even with the absurd rationale that if a slur is "only offensive to 9% of the people" that it should not be changed, I wonder.
If the name was offensive to 9% of white people that would be 22,000,000 people in the US alone. Does the fact that there are so far fewer Native Americans (for which I will not go into some of the obvious reasons this is true) make you feel good to say "If it offends them, who cares?" What year would the team's name have been changed if this were the case?
Also, keep in mind the team's sad history as the last team in the NFL to integrate African American players. While representing the nation's capital. And having to be urged and pleaded with by our politicians to do so, despite opposition from the team for many years. And the original owner's well known racism. The list goes on and the more you know, the less it feels okay to say "But I like football teams to have the same names they always had because it makes me personally happy."
The name will be changed for sure. >>
Consider this:
A vast majority of Native Americans find the term "Washington Redskins" and the logo as symbol of pride and honor (they're kinda into that). At what point do the concerns of a 9% minority outweigh the rest? If something deemed offensive should be removed/banned, regardless of support or lack thereof, then you should get behind a cause that has unanimous support of Native Americans. Removing President Jackson from the $20 bill. >>
Stown, in the history of human beings, when has there been a cause where society was unanimous in their thoughts?
With the current Indian population so fragmented, and with the knowledge that many American Indians probably do not even realize there is a Washington Redskins football team, there really is no way to get even majority support.
However, I am sure that if the vocal 9% were to travel cross country to educate and highlight the issue to all possible interested parties, that the 9% figure would rise considerably.
Surely if honoring them were a goal, don't you think there would be much better ways than using a derogatory term that reinforces a negative stereotype of American Indians being savages and closer to animals than to humans?
Good call on the $20 bill, as some Native Americans don't even want to use them. However, I believe there are more complications in making that change, as opposed to the extremely simple change of the team name...which is done routinely in sports.
But, for those of you in favor of using racist slurs for team nicknames, keep on fighting for it. You only keep further proving how ignorant you chose to be.
<< <i>Stown, I am for that as well. It had not come up in this forum as of yet. >>
I asked earlier but can understand if it got lost in the chatter.
<< <i>Stown, in the history of human beings, when has there been a cause where society was unanimous in their thoughts? >>
Society as a whole? Probably zero to none. On the other hand, cultures (ie individual societies) have a long history of unanimous support for many causes that help them benefit and thrive. As a side note, I encourage dissent as it exposes dishonesty of the people in power. Would say keeps them honest but unfortunately, that's long gone.
<< <i>With the current Indian population so fragmented, and with the knowledge that many American Indians probably do not even realize there is a Washington Redskins football team, there really is no way to get even majority support.
However, I am sure that if the vocal 9% were to travel cross country to educate and highlight the issue to all possible interested parties, that the 9% figure would rise considerably >>
Dude, it's not like we're talking about the Amish; Native Americans are not forbidden to use modern technology.
<< <i>Surely if honoring them were a goal, don't you think there would be much better ways than using a derogatory term that reinforces a negative stereotype of American Indians being savages and closer to animals than to humans? >>
They don't see it that way and personally, I think that would apply more to Chief Wahoo's cartoonish features than Washington's logo.
<< <i>Good call on the $20 bill, as some Native Americans don't even want to use them. However, I believe there are more complications in making that change, as opposed to the extremely simple change of the team name...which is done routinely in sports >>
Name changes have happened but to my knowledge, no owner has ever been forced to. For example, the Washington Bullets, even though the name was *always* associated with transportation, their owner didn't want to deal with the fauxrage. It's not simple because in the end, it's a private company and they have the right to keep their name, just like you have the right to express your opinion.
If he changes it, great. If he doesn't, that's great too. Having said that, if people find the term 'Washington Redskins' so offensive, vile, and demeaning, they should look at the bigger picture and focus their efforts on something much bigger IMO.
The facts are, the backers of the continued use of this slur have YET to bring up anything resembling a cohesive argument for the continued use of this slur. They continue to try to spin the argument in a variety of other directions, and at no point in any of their comments bring up anything close to a defense of the term. The reason? Because there is no logical reason for the team name to exist. Period.
No, the owner is not being forced to change his name...ultimately it is his decision(or the league's). However, the people expressing their disagreement with the name has gotten more support, and times change. The owner and league simply have to weigh the amount of negative criticism for their entity to their profit making. In the end, they will end up changing it, sell the same amount of tickets they sold before...and then get to sell extra millions of dollars worth of hats and jersey's with their new logo and name.
Then they will no longer be using a term that relegates people to mascots. Being a mascot is not good...it is closer to being somebody's Bi@ch than it is to being a person.
As for the current Indian nations. They are poor...the poorest in our country. You say that surely that there are better causes than worrying about them being used as mascots...but sometimes those little victories add up.
And I am sure there are more worthy team nicknames that can be used that don't rub salt into the wound of an already conquered and impoverished group of people.
Not that hard or harmful to change a team nickname.
Quite hard to tackle on any other more worthy causes you are talking about. But jeez, if the majority of the people can't see the mascot problem(which has an extremely easy and harmless solution)...how on earth do you expect these people to be accepting of a more challenging cause?
If anyone decides to give up the NFL until Dan Snider changes his team's name, I'll be the first to pat you on the back and give full support.
<< <i>
Quite hard to tackle on any other more worthy causes you are talking about. But jeez, if the majority of the people can't see the mascot problem(which has an extremely easy and harmless solution)...how on earth do you expect these people to be accepting of a more challenging cause? >>
Exactly. You already have plenty of people here suggesting this call for change is inexplicably about a cash grab or hand out (despite making no connection whatsoever between those two topics). If something like a football team name is meeting this sort of resistance, and people are digging in their heels without knowing why or being able to communicate why, then what does someone like stown expect to happen?
<< <i>I understand your point, skin, just disagree with the shaming aspect of it. I think the best course of action, especially in a cause one truly believes in, is to boycott. Words have more meaning when a personal sacrifice is involved. Otherwise, it's just empty words (or in this case, sore fingers from typing so much).
If anyone decides to give up the NFL until Dan Snider changes his team's name, I'll be the first to pat you on the back and give full support. >>
That is part of my point in all of this. Very few people (if anybody) using the term Redskin are thinking about race or using it in an ill-spirited way. They are using it in reference to a football team.
Two years ago, before this movement started to take shape, if you asked 100 people on the street, which was the more offensive team nickname - Redskins or All-Blacks - I bet the majority would say All Blacks, and it would probably be by a fairly wide margin.
<< <i><<<Come on, man. The NZ rugby team is called the 'All Blacks' because of the color of their jerseys. It's not a name that has anything to do with race. You're a smart guy- don't act stupid. >>>
That is part of my point in all of this. Very few people (if anybody) using the term Redskin are thinking about race or using it in an ill-spirited way. They are using it in reference to a football team.
Two years ago, before this movement started to take shape, if you asked 100 people on the street, which was the more offensive team nickname - Redskins or All-Blacks - I bet the majority would say All Blacks, and it would probably be by a fairly wide margin. >>
I always enjoy your contributions on these boards, so I'm assuming you're just being deliberately obtuse.
Most people who use the term 'Oriental' to describe someone from Asia aren't using that term in an ill-spirited way, either. That doesn't mean you would ever use the term, or name a sports team such. If someone wanted to name a new team the 'Albuquerque Orientals' I think there'd be a fair amount of push back, even though the term isn't really pejorative.
Thanks, and I yours.
<<<so I'm assuming you're just being deliberately obtuse.
Most people who use the term 'Oriental' to describe someone from Asia aren't using that term in an ill-spirited way, either. That doesn't mean you would ever use the term, or name a sports team such. If someone wanted to name a new team the 'Albuquerque Orientals' I think there'd be a fair amount of push back, even though the term isn't really pejorative. >>>
I agree that if somebody today tried to name a new team the Albuquerque Orientals, there would be a fair amount of blowback (not by me), but that is only a function of the world we now live in. I suspect if 80 years ago the owner decided to name his team the Washington Orientals instead of Redskins, we'd be in the same position we are today.
For me, this topic is not unlike the censorship issue involving 2 Live Crew 20 years ago. A contingent of people were up in arms because of the raunchy lyrics, even though the vast majority of those people had never before listened to the music, would never have to listen to the music, and couldn't pick Luther Campbell out of a lineup. Their goal was to prevent other people that had no intention of listening to the music from being able to listen to the music, along with preventing those people that wanted to listen to the music from enjoying the music. Similarly, the group of Native Americans that actually take pride in the Redskin name, may now see that source of pride go out the window because a bunch of people that aren't offended by the name personally are raising a stink.
<< <i>
For me, this topic is not unlike the censorship issue involving 2 Live Crew 20 years ago. A contingent of people were up in arms because of the raunchy lyrics, even though the vast majority of those people had never before listened to the music, would never have to listen to the music, and couldn't pick Luther Campbell out of a lineup. Their goal was to prevent other people that had no intention of listening to the music from being able to listen to the music, along with preventing those people that wanted to listen to the music from enjoying the music. Similarly, the group of Native Americans that actually take pride in the Redskin name, may now see that source of pride go out the window because a bunch of people that aren't offended by the name personally are raising a stink. >>
But what you're talking about in regards to music is covered under the First Amendment right to free expression, and trying to equate that with a racial slur for a prominent football team name is not anywhere near equivalent.
<< <i>For me, this topic is not unlike the censorship issue involving 2 Live Crew 20 years ago. A contingent of people were up in arms because of the raunchy lyrics, even though the vast majority of those people had never before listened to the music, would never have to listen to the music, and couldn't pick Luther Campbell out of a lineup. Their goal was to prevent other people that had no intention of listening to the music from being able to listen to the music, along with preventing those people that wanted to listen to the music from enjoying the music. >>
That was Al Gore's wife, Tipper. Notice a pattern?
<< <i><<<I always enjoy your contributions on these boards>>>
Thanks, and I yours.
<<<so I'm assuming you're just being deliberately obtuse.
Most people who use the term 'Oriental' to describe someone from Asia aren't using that term in an ill-spirited way, either. That doesn't mean you would ever use the term, or name a sports team such. If someone wanted to name a new team the 'Albuquerque Orientals' I think there'd be a fair amount of push back, even though the term isn't really pejorative. >>>
I agree that if somebody today tried to name a new team the Albuquerque Orientals, there would be a fair amount of blowback (not by me), but that is only a function of the world we now live in. I suspect if 80 years ago the owner decided to name his team the Washington Orientals instead of Redskins, we'd be in the same position we are today.
For me, this topic is not unlike the censorship issue involving 2 Live Crew 20 years ago. A contingent of people were up in arms because of the raunchy lyrics, even though the vast majority of those people had never before listened to the music, would never have to listen to the music, and couldn't pick Luther Campbell out of a lineup. Their goal was to prevent other people that had no intention of listening to the music from being able to listen to the music, along with preventing those people that wanted to listen to the music from enjoying the music. Similarly, the group of Native Americans that actually take pride in the Redskin name, may now see that source of pride go out the window because a bunch of people that aren't offended by the name personally are raising a stink. >>
The Redskin debate is not a censorship issue; it seems weird that you would insinuate otherwise. As for the 2LC, what groups like the PMRC were arguing-- and I think they had a point-- is that if you're going to record songs about doing a train on a girl then your albums should come with some kind of label that gives the consumer some understanding of the album's lyrical content. I don't recall anyone, anywhere, ever saying that 2LCs music should be outlawed.
But that's a digression-- what this comes down to is that the Redskin name is just tacky, and having that name associated with the NFL is an embarrassment to the league. Is it the end of the world if they don't change it? No. Are there people (on both sides) blowing this issue way out of proportion? Absolutely. But that doesn't change the fundamentals.
Would you ever call someone a 'Redskin'? Think about that. If you were dating a Native American, and were talking about her to your friends, would you ever say 'Yeah, she was kind of offended by that new Lone Ranger movie, since, you know-- she's a redskin'. Or, if this seems contrived, is there any context in which you would actually refer to a Native American as a 'redskin'? If so, when? If not, why not? And even if you argue that there ARE contexts in which you would refer to a human being from this term, do you agree that other people who choose not to have good reason not to?
<< <i>
<< <i>For me, this topic is not unlike the censorship issue involving 2 Live Crew 20 years ago. A contingent of people were up in arms because of the raunchy lyrics, even though the vast majority of those people had never before listened to the music, would never have to listen to the music, and couldn't pick Luther Campbell out of a lineup. Their goal was to prevent other people that had no intention of listening to the music from being able to listen to the music, along with preventing those people that wanted to listen to the music from enjoying the music. >>
That was Al Gore's wife, Tipper. Notice a pattern? >>
Is this the point in the dialogue where we're all supposed to whine in unison that 'It's always those gosh-darned liberals who are trying to tell us what to do?' Or does that stage come later?
<< <i>So it's okay for people to throw out the racist card (be it direct or implied, which has been done several times) but when it comes to identifying the ringleader censoring 2 Live Crew? WELL, NOW YOU'VE GONE TOO FAR!
But she didn't attempt to 'censor' them. She (along with others) wanted explicit content labeled. For someone who claims to be such a stickler for facts, you really throw it to the wind in a failing attempt to prop your own defense of a racist slur.
No, I wouldn't use the term, but not because I think it is slur that cannot and should not be used. I wouldn't use it because it is not part of my lexicon. In my world, "Redskin" refers to "the football team in Washington" and that is it. I'd like to consider myself a fairly educated person, but I've already admitted in previous posts that before this "controversy" began, I had no idea it was a racial slur. Perhaps that is due to the fact that I live in an area with very few Native Americans. In all honesty, if I was trying to disparage a Native American either to their face or in the context you've described above, I don't know what word I would use, but I'd have to go really far down the list before I came up with Redskin.
Now that I know it is a racial slur, I will continue not to use the word, but it doesn't change my view about whether Dan Snyder should change the name of his football team. If the word is such a taboo word and has been for decades, I then refer back to the OP's question: Why is the Washington Redskins name controversy only JUST NOW making news? My feeling (which based on polls that have been conducted and articles written seems to be supported by the very people against whom the slur is directed) is that this a fairly contrived controversy mostly spearheaded by people outside of the Native American race that feel empowered by the current cultural climate to effect change, even if the people they are trying to help aren't asking for their help.
<< <i>For me, this topic is not unlike the censorship issue involving 2 Live Crew 20 years ago. >>
The more controversy and censorship that 2 Live Crew saw, the more money they earned. Is that really what's going on with the Washington Redskins? Does their popularity and revenue really increase the more that other people disapprove of their name?
<< <i>
<< <i>For me, this topic is not unlike the censorship issue involving 2 Live Crew 20 years ago. >>
The more controversy and censorship that 2 Live Crew saw, the more money they earned. Is that really what's going on with the Washington Redskins? Does their popularity and revenue really increase the more that other people disapprove of their name? >>
No, but the people who are continuing to defend the use of this racist term are grasping at straws trying to defend their stance, and this is the latest example. First it was the 'liberal PC police' trying to enforce their ways on the population, now it's trying to compare it to a first amendment issue. The backers of 'Redskin' use really have no shame.
<< <i><<<Would you ever call someone a 'Redskin'? Think about that. If you were dating a Native American, and were talking about her to your friends, would you ever say 'Yeah, she was kind of offended by that new Lone Ranger movie, since, you know-- she's a redskin'. Or, if this seems contrived, is there any context in which you would actually refer to a Native American as a 'redskin'? If so, when? If not, why not? And even if you argue that there ARE contexts in which you would refer to a human being from this term, do you agree that other people who choose not to have good reason not to?>>>
No, I wouldn't use the term, but not because I think it is slur that cannot and should not be used. I wouldn't use it because it is not part of my lexicon. In my world, "Redskin" refers to "the football team in Washington" and that is it. I'd like to consider myself a fairly educated person, but I've already admitted in previous posts that before this "controversy" began, I had no idea it was a racial slur. Perhaps that is due to the fact that I live in an area with very few Native Americans. In all honesty, if I was trying to disparage a Native American either to their face or in the context you've described above, I don't know what word I would use, but I'd have to go really far down the list before I came up with Redskin.
Now that I know it is a racial slur, I will continue not to use the word, but it doesn't change my view about whether Dan Snyder should change the name of his football team. If the word is such a taboo word and has been for decades, I then refer back to the OP's question: Why is the Washington Redskins name controversy only JUST NOW making news? My feeling (which based on polls that have been conducted and articles written seems to be supported by the very people against whom the slur is directed) is that this a fairly contrived controversy mostly spearheaded by people outside of the Native American race that feel empowered by the current cultural climate to effect change, even if the people they are trying to help aren't asking for their help. >>
I remember this going on in the 80's...not specifically Redskins, but the whole idea of using Indians and Indian caricatures as mascots.
As for referring to people, really the only adjectives used to describe a person should be man, woman, child...or more appropriately, their name. If the need arises to use an alternative, then friend, sir, gentleman...or any other word of a positive nature should be used. That is respect.
Being a mascot is not a sign of respect. It is being somebody's bit@ch, or pet.
Whether or not ALL Indians know that, or realize that, doesn't make the ones who do see it, wrong in their assertions.
On that point, look at some of the Indian names:
Braves...not slang or disrespectful.
Blackhawks....simply the name of a tribe from the area. Not slang
Indians....simply the whole race. Not slang.
Chiefs....name of the guy in charge. Not slang.
Redskins...A slang term. Origins to describe skin color. Other origins as a disrespectful term. Either way you look at it, it is disrespectful when using skin color to describe someone, and so of course is using a demeaning term to describe someone.
Really, someone could find fault in using Indians as mascots in all of the above instances...however, Redskins is different than the other ones, and is more disrespectful.
<< <i>
No, but the people who are continuing to defend the use of this racist term are grasping at straws trying to defend their stance, and this is the latest example. First it was the 'liberal PC police' trying to enforce their ways on the population, now it's trying to compare it to a first amendment issue. The backers of 'Redskin' use really have no shame. >>
No one is grasping at straws. There's just 10% of the population who never understand the reality of the situation.
As Mike Schmidt once said, 'For those who understand, no explanation is needed. For those who don't understand, no explanation will suffice."
<< <i>My feeling (which based on polls that have been conducted and articles written seems to be supported by the very people against whom the slur is directed) is that this a fairly contrived controversy mostly spearheaded by people outside of the Native American race that feel empowered by the current cultural climate to effect change, even if the people they are trying to help aren't asking for their help. >>
Well said, jdip.
Their tactic, shaming, is the epidemy of being lazy because it doesn't change a person's opinion but rather an attempt to make them feel embarrassed of having said opinion. That's why it's the foundation of SA's rules; generally speaking, it's nothing but loud noises from uninformed pawns. Rather than regurgitating the flavor of the month talking points, stop being a keyboard warrior and go take direct action. The only thing stopping you from doing this is yourself.
If it's a cause you truly believe in, get outside, go protest, and boycott the NFL to make your voice heard. Posting on a sports card forum does absolutely *nothing*.
This person was enraged, joining the bandwagon about boycotting Chick-Fil-A.
A month later the person was drastically craving a chicken sandwhich from said store.
She bought it.
Again, I'd love to peek into the collections of all these people supporting a ban on a word being used in a non-offensive way, and see if
everything Washington Redskins from their collection is thrown in the garbage. If they really feel that strongly about these ill-advised convictions, then let's see them
put up or shut up.
<< <i>
Redskins...A slang term. Origins to describe skin color. Other origins as a disrespectful term. Either way you look at it, it is disrespectful when using skin color to describe someone,. >>
Not true. I hear people all the time trying to remember the name of someone saying.......
Said person is.......
A. Tall
B. Dark Skinned
C. Overweight
D. Polite
E. Hard working
Oh yeah, that's Mean Joe Green you're talking about !!
Nothing offensive at all in that discourse.
Just face it 1985fan. You are so off course in your thinking. The majority of people are sensible, but there's always 10% that just never get it.
Chick Fil A isn't an offensive term, so bringing it up proves, once again, that you don't know how to compare. As far as your comparison in trying to describe someone, in trying to describe a Native American, would you EVER say 'he was a redskin'? Of course you wouldn't. Be that as it may, IT DOESN'T MATTER!
Redskin offends some Native Americans (as it should). It's origins are racist in tone, and, as I have said over and over again, just because a majority of people don't agree doesn't make any less offensive!
What are you people going to rail against next when the Redskins team name is changed? What fight that has no bearing on your everyday life are you going to take up next? The 'war' on Christmas? I think you folks should stop getting your talking points from certain media outlets and work for progressive change, instead of fighting against it.
<< <i>
What are you people going to rail against next when the Redskins team name is changed? . >>
Your credibility(which some here say you never had) continues to go down the toilet. You have no way of knowing the future.
Last I heard, the owner of the team has no intentions of changing it..
<< <i>
<< <i>
What are you people going to rail against next when the Redskins team name is changed? . >>
Your credibility(which some here say you never had) continues to go down the toilet. You have no way of knowing the future.
Last I heard, the owner of the team has no intentions of changing it.. >>
When the commissioner and the league in general wants something, it gets it. This will be no different. Snyder will be forced to relent under the increasing scrutiny of the media, the fans, and overwhelming support for the changing of this racist slur. When that happens (and it WILL happen), what are you going to do? Whine and complain about the 'good ole days' when you could toss around racist terms without any repercussions?
I grew up in Queens, NY, and the St. John's college basketball team was known as the "Red Men" when I was a kid. Sometime later the team name was chnaged to the "Red Storm" and as I recall, there was some resistance to the change at the time. But now, almost a quarter century later, no one even cares.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
You all have bought the lie, hook, line, and sinker.
The 91% can't believe you have a problem with a word they feel is not bothersome.
If you ever sat down to eat with 91% of these Native American Indians across these great 48 states, and you got up to explain
to them how the term Redskin is offensive, they would laugh you out of the building.
Sort of like how we're all laughing at this right now......but you still don't get it, and that's even funnier
<< <i>91% of Native Americans across 48 states have no problem with the term Redskin.
You all have bought the lie, hook, line, and sinker.
The 91% can't believe you have a problem with a word they feel is not bothersome.
If you ever sat down to eat with 91% of these Native American Indians across these great 48 states, and you got up to explain
to them how the term Redskin is offensive, they would laugh you out of the building.
Sort of like how we're all laughing at this right now......but you still don't get it, and that's even funnier
Really? Curious how you know that. I bet you can be lead to some that will disagree with that
Like I said before, calling/referring to anyone based on their skin color is of poor taste. The only time that is really necessary would be for a crime investigation to get every piece of information possible.
Using a term that is derogatory makes it even worse.
The simple fact is this— the name of the Redskins does not have any racial intent. On the contrary, when fans holler “Let's go Redskins!” they are making completely harmless, even positive statements, about themselves and the team they support. But that doesn’t matter to the PC brigade, which is now so cut adrift from the real world inhabited by the rest of us that it cares not one jot for the context in which words are spoken.
The war of words against any team or informal community that speaks in a way decreed “inappropriate” by the self-elected guardians of correctness shows how imperious PC can be.
Skin, Grote, and 1985fan have all fallen into the PC trap. The term Washington Redskins has never been used in the history of the NFL in a derogatory way towards Native Americans.
Yet the PC heads have conned you to believe it has. You quite simply do not understand context, and how important context is. On top of that, real historical data shows
that 91% of Native Americans across 48 states disagree with your PC silliness.
Please keep telling us how Redskin is offensive though. It is hilarious listening to these funny banters of yours.
<< <i>
Using a term that is derogatory makes it even worse. >>
Again, 91% of Native Americans think your point of view is silly.
<< <i>The simple fact is this— the name of the Redskins does not have any racial intent. On the contrary, when fans holler “Let's go Redskins!” they are making completely harmless, even positive statements, about themselves and the team they support. But that doesn’t matter to the PC brigade, which is now so cut adrift from the real world inhabited by the rest of us that it cares not one jot for the context in which words are spoken.
The war of words against any team or informal community that speaks in a way decreed “inappropriate” by the self-elected guardians of correctness shows how imperious PC can be.
Skin, Grote, and 1985fan have all fallen into the PC trap. The term Washington Redskins has never been used in the history of the NFL in a derogatory way towards Native Americans.
Yet the PC heads have conned you to believe it has. You quite simply do not understand context, and how important context is. On top of that, real historical data shows
that 91% of Native Americans across 48 states disagree with your PC silliness.
Please keep telling us how Redskin is offensive though. It is hilarious listening to these funny banters of yours.
So then based on what YOU are saying, you would no problem introducing a group of Asian businessmen, and saying, "I would like you to meet my yellow skinned associates?"
Or a group of American Indians, "these are my Redskin buyers of the property."
Those aren't meant in derogatory ways either...you are simply describing the group of people.
You don't understand, the derogatory aspect is simply the use of it...it is tacky and of poor taste to refer to people because of their skin color...regardless of intent. Like 85fan said, just because you are conditioned to it and used to it, doesn't mean it is right.
Please show me again how you got 2.9 Million american Indians opinion on the matter, when you keep putting this 9% figure out there like it is gospel.
<< <i>
You don't understand, the derogatory aspect is simply the use of it...it is tacky and of poor taste to refer to people because of their skin color...regardless of intent. Like 85fan said, just because you are conditioned to it and used to it, doesn't mean it is right.
. >>
Do you actually believe what you are writing ???
Modeling agencies use the terms "light-skinned", "dark skinned", "Hispanic like skin", "dark skinned" "oily skinned", and many other skin terms in order to describe the type
of models that are needed for a shoot. People used the term "Redskin" to describe a certain type of people.
My Jewish relatives describe the Jews in Brazil as "dark-skinned" Jews. They describe the Jews of Scandinavia as "light-skinned" Jews.
The description of one's skin color, or tone, is used in society every day of the week. You can't watch a woman's beauty commercial without women talking about
their skin tone, and other ladies skin tones. But you say we can't ever talk about people's skin tone ????
Yet the PC police has convinced you that whenever you use a persons skin tone to describe them, that is a big no-no.
Please try to learn the meaning of context. It will serve you well.
<< <i>
Do you actually believe what you are writing ???
Modeling agencies use the terms "light-skinned", "dark skinned", "Hispanic like skin", "dark skinned" "oily skinned", and many other skin terms in order to describe the type
of models that are needed for a shoot. People used the term "Redskin" to describe a certain type of people.
>>
Are you seriously that desperate to prop your failing argument that you would equate 'light skinned' and 'Redskin'? Good gravy I guess there's no depth to which your standards for debate will sink in order to try to defend your inherently flawed premise.
<< <i>My Jewish relatives describe the Jews in Brazil as "dark-skinned" Jews. They describe the Jews of Scandinavia as "light-skinned" Jews. >>
And NEITHER of those are anywhere near akin to calling a Native American a 'Redskin', and the fact that you are trying to equate the two proves just how desensitized you are to the racial slur itself.
<< <i>The description of one's skin color, or tone, is used in society every day of the week. You can't watch a woman's beauty commercial without women talking about
their skin tone, and other ladies skin tones. But you say we can't ever talk about people's skin tone ???? >>
'Redskin' isn't talking about a Native American's skin tone, it's an inherently offensive racial slur. Your continued insistence on avoiding this is perplexing.
<< <i>Yet the PC police has convinced you that whenever you use a persons skin tone to describe them, that is a big no-no. >>
That's not happening here, and who is this mythical PC police force you and your bigoted brethren keep referring to?
<< <i>Please try to learn the meaning of context. It will serve you well. >>
I'd ask the same of you, but you aren't interested in it. You're interested in anything OTHER than actually debating the topic at hand - which is the offensive racial SLUR 'Redskin' being tossed around like it's no big deal.
Fitz, what would you personally lose if the Redskins team was renamed tomorrow? Why are you so adamant in trying to perpetuate the use of a racial term in everyday language?