# Getting Offended on Behalf of Other People (Redskins) **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 19, 2016, 3:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/getting-offended-on-behalf-of-other-people-redskins/755167 "2016-05-19T15:41:37Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Small\_Hen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ad7895/32.png) [@Small\_Hen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Small_Hen)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2016, 8:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/getting-offended-on-behalf-of-other-people-redskins/755167/41 "2016-05-19T20:14:07Z")
> [@spifflog](#): > > Interesting to see some here trying to find a way to discredit the poll or say the results really don’t matter. My guess is that the very same people would say how valuable and impressive the poll was, and how important the results were if it found that 90% of Native Americans _were_ offended by the name. It’s true. When a poll estimates that approximately two and a half million people feel something is causing them emotional distress, I’d say it has more importance than a poll stating that two and a half million don’t care about something. Of course, that same poll still implies that something like two hundred thousand people are distressed by the name. I consider that important too. More important that the name of a football team. These numbers do not take into consideration the larger number of non-NA people who simply find the name distasteful. ---
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2016, 8:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/getting-offended-on-behalf-of-other-people-redskins/755167/42 "2016-05-19T20:19:20Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > The OP is conflating “being offended” with “rejecting as inappropriate”. Which is not surprising, as the two concepts are closely linked, but they’re not the same thing. > > The term “redskin” for American Indians/Native Americans is currently regarded as an ethnic slur. The fact that it was historically considered acceptable, and that it has a history as a well-known team name, and even that many of the people it references don’t feel personally offended by it, doesn’t change the fact that it’s inappropriate to use an ethnic slur as an official sports team name. To the contrary. You’re asserting that it’s “currently regarded as an ethnic slur” as if that’s some basic and obvious fact and then proceeding from that point on, when in reality the whole notion that it’s an ethnic slur is predicated on it being offensive. So your entire argument is circular. ---
**Author:** ![robert\_columbia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e79b87/32.png) [@robert\_columbia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/robert_columbia)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2016, 8:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/getting-offended-on-behalf-of-other-people-redskins/755167/43 "2016-05-19T20:23:11Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > I can say as a white dude, if a team was named the Georgia Crackers or something I would find it very weird, but I wouldn’t be personally offended by it. I would still think that they should change their name, which is a question that curiously the poll didn’t ask. Could being white make it somehow less offensive? I, personally, wouldn’t mind if the Washington Redskins became the Washington Drunk Irish, the Washington Sheep Shagging Scotsmen, the Washington Not-Funny Germans, or the Washington Inbred Mountain Hillbillies, and I have ancestry from all of those groups. It would actually be more funny than offensive if that really happened. ---
**Author:** ![Sunny\_Daze](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sunny_daze/32/438_2.png) [@Sunny\_Daze](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sunny_Daze)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2016, 8:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/getting-offended-on-behalf-of-other-people-redskins/755167/44 "2016-05-19T20:23:45Z")
I think the point about whether we (the collective we) have to wait to decide that something is offensive based on whether the targeted group feels offended is valid. We don’t “Redskins” is offensive. it is an ethnic slur. “Darkies” would be offensive. Certain race-based descriptors are clearly tied to a derogatory history, no matter how much someone now wants to imply that we’re discussing a noble warrior or some such nonsense. Choose something else. It is my belief as well that the poll was likely flawed. My family has been here hundreds of years. Yes, I technically have native american blood. If the only qualifying question that was asked was do you have native american ancestry, then the survey completely missed capturing someone is who culturally native american. ---
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2016, 8:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/getting-offended-on-behalf-of-other-people-redskins/755167/45 "2016-05-19T20:28:32Z")
> [@ddsun](#): > > Certain race-based descriptors are clearly tied to a derogatory history, no matter how much someone now wants to imply that we’re discussing a noble warrior or some such nonsense. I don’t think this is relevant to the thread, but it seems pretty obvious to me that the intent of the name is to summon up an image of a noble warrior or something of that sort. Why would someone want to give his team a name which conveyed a negative image? ---
**Author:** ![mistymage](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mistymage/32/459_2.png) [@mistymage](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mistymage)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2016, 8:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/getting-offended-on-behalf-of-other-people-redskins/755167/46 "2016-05-19T20:29:05Z")
> [@lance\_strongarm](#): > > I think this is worthy of more study - is there a big difference within the Indian community by band or tribe? Do certain bands or tribes find the word offensive when others don’t? And why? I don’t think there is any all tribe consensus on just about anything. As to the why? well, I would guess that most NAs have more pressing issues to worry about. I’m lucky in that I was raised off the rez so while I was poor I wasn’t rez poor. Then I married “up” and am firmly middle class so have time to be offended over something that is offensive but not super important when you compare it to people wanting clean water, better living conditions and health care. But getting rid of an ethnic slur is just one more brick needed to pave a smooth road. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M8r8cQNpWt4](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M8r8cQNpWt4) shows some NAs word association with the word redskins. ---
**Author:** ![Sunny\_Daze](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sunny_daze/32/438_2.png) [@Sunny\_Daze](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sunny_Daze)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2016, 8:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/getting-offended-on-behalf-of-other-people-redskins/755167/47 "2016-05-19T20:30:36Z")
> [@robert\_columbia](#): > > Could being white make it somehow less offensive? > > I, personally, wouldn’t mind if the Washington Redskins became the Washington Drunk Irish, the Washington Sheep Shagging Scotsmen, the Washington Not-Funny Germans, or the Washington Inbred Mountain Hillbillies, and I have ancestry from all of those groups. It would actually be more funny than offensive if that really happened. I have a twisted sense of humor, and common ancestry with you. I would enjoy seeing the mascot proposals. _snerk_ But, yeah, still offensive. I would totally support something that rips the political system though. Washington Scumsuckers Washington Paid for by Koch Washington Try Again in 4 Years ---
**Author:** ![robert\_columbia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e79b87/32.png) [@robert\_columbia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/robert_columbia)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2016, 8:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/getting-offended-on-behalf-of-other-people-redskins/755167/48 "2016-05-19T20:31:26Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > To the contrary. > > You’re asserting that it’s “currently regarded as an ethnic slur” as if that’s some basic and obvious fact and then proceeding from that point on, when in reality the whole notion that it’s an ethnic slur is predicated on it being offensive. So your entire argument is circular. Right. There isn’t some officious body at the Office of the English Language that issues a new dictionary every year that lists which terms will be deemed ethnic slurs for the coming year. What is and what is not a slur is defined socially and changes over time. ---
**Author:** ![Sunny\_Daze](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sunny_daze/32/438_2.png) [@Sunny\_Daze](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sunny_Daze)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2016, 8:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/getting-offended-on-behalf-of-other-people-redskins/755167/49 "2016-05-19T20:34:19Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > I don’t think this is relevant to the thread, but it seems pretty obvious to me that the intent of the name is to summon up an image of a noble warrior or something of that sort. Why would someone want to give his team a name which conveyed a negative image? Of course there is an argument that “Redskin” is somehow the same as “Viking” or “Aztec”. It’s not. By choosing the name, they are using a word that they would like to believe calls up the “noble warrior” but instead is a slur that Americans have been using for centuries as they drove Native Americans from their homes. ---
**Author:** ![running\_coach](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/running_coach/32/15836_2.png) [@running\_coach](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/running_coach)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2016, 9:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/getting-offended-on-behalf-of-other-people-redskins/755167/50 "2016-05-19T21:00:15Z")
> [@ddsun](#): > > I have a twisted sense of humor, and common ancestry with you. I would enjoy seeing the mascot proposals. _snerk_ But, yeah, still offensive. > > I would totally support something that rips the political system though. > > Washington Scumsuckers > Washington Paid for by Koch > Washington Try Again in 4 Years The Washington GOPs. Best blocking in the NFL. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2016, 9:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/getting-offended-on-behalf-of-other-people-redskins/755167/51 "2016-05-19T21:27:39Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > TYou’re asserting that it’s “currently regarded as an ethnic slur” as if that’s some basic and obvious fact and then proceeding from that point on, when in reality the whole notion that it’s an ethnic slur is predicated on it being offensive. So your entire argument is circular. Uh, no. The classification of “redskin” as an ethnic slur is based on, e.g., standard dictionary usage, as in [Merriam-Webster’s designation](http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/redskin) “_usually offensive_” for it. This is no new development, either: as [this article points out](http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2013/10/redskin-definition-dictionary-merriam-webster-contemptuous-offensive), various dictionaries have been classifying the ethnic descriptor “redskin” as a pejorative for over a century: > [@](#): > > 1898: A different line of M-W dictionaries, the Collegiate, adds an important distinction in its first edition: > A North American Indian; —often contemptuous. […] > > 1961: The New International’s third edition, often called Webster’s Third, adds the label “—usually taken to be offensive.” > > 1983: Seventy-three years after dropping “often contemptuous,” the ninth edition of the Collegiate adds the label “—usu. taken to be offensive.” > > 2003: After the Collegiate’s 10th edition retained the above label, the 11th edition changes it to “usually offensive.” I’d be surprised if you can find a US dictionary edition within the past twenty years that doesn’t acknowledge the pejorative nature of the term “redskin”. This is most certainly not just a flash-in-the-pan phenomenon of people gratuitously seeking something to be offended about. In fact, **even people who support keeping “Redskins” as the Washington team name mostly agree that the term in ordinary usage nowadays counts as an ethnic slur** , as [this 2013 article notes:](http://www.npr.org/sections/codeswitch/2013/09/09/220654611/are-you-ready-for-some-controversy-the-history-of-redskin) > [@](#): > > A Washington Post poll from June revealed that 8 out of 10 fans believe the team should keep its name. However, you shouldn’t expect to hear those same fans use the word in nonfootball conversations. Over half of those questioned agreed that the word “redskin” is an inappropriate term to describe Native Americans. ---
**Author:** ![robert\_columbia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e79b87/32.png) [@robert\_columbia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/robert_columbia)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2016, 9:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/getting-offended-on-behalf-of-other-people-redskins/755167/52 "2016-05-19T21:28:02Z")
> [@ddsun](#): > > Of course there is an argument that “Redskin” is somehow the same as “Viking” or “Aztec”. It’s not. By choosing the name, they are using a word that they would like to believe calls up the “noble warrior” but instead is a slur that Americans have been using for centuries as they drove Native Americans from their homes. So who decides whether or not something is a slur? If I were to claim that the term “white person” is actually a slur, would anyone believe me? What if I got 10,000 signatures on a petition? Should it be put to a majority-rules public referendum or do existing leaders get to choose whether to reclassify the term without input from their constituents? ---
**Author:** ![Fiveyearlurker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/da6949/32.png) [@Fiveyearlurker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fiveyearlurker)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2016, 9:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/getting-offended-on-behalf-of-other-people-redskins/755167/53 "2016-05-19T21:30:36Z")
> [@spifflog](#): > > So any any survey group of less than 50,000 by definition can not contain Native Americans, and this is a mathematical certainty? > Hard to argue with that. No, that’s not what I said. What I said is that any survey group of fewer than 50,000 randomly sampled Americans can not contain 504 Native Americans. Do I need to walk through it again? 1% of the population of the US is Indian according to the census. This survey had a total of 500 Indians. If those 500 Indians are actually Indian, then the surveyors (who randomly surveyed Americans) had to survey a total of 50000 people (500 is 1% of 50000). It’s not only hard to argue with that, it’s impossible. They don’t give this number, but it’s pretty damn unlikely that they surveyed 50000 people. It’s much more likely that their survey pulled up way higher than 1% of their subjects identifying as Indian. And the reason for that higher hit rate is likely because most of those 500 Indians are pretending to be Indians. It nicely explains why polls that ascertain that those being surveyed are actually Indian, come up with a [very different](http://cips.csusb.edu/docs/PressRelease.pdf) answer. > [@DrDeth](#): > > I think “pretend to be Indian” is a little insulting. Many people have 1/4 or even rarely 1/2 native heritage, but their tribe is restrictive. Yes, those are called Indians. They aren’t pretending. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2016, 9:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/getting-offended-on-behalf-of-other-people-redskins/755167/54 "2016-05-19T21:42:39Z")
> [@Fiveyearlurker](#): > > Yes, those are called Indians. They aren’t pretending. Nope. The US Government has ruled that each Tribe legally gets to decide who is a “Indian”. If you are not a recognized member of a recognized tribe (USA) you are not a “Indian”. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2016, 9:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/getting-offended-on-behalf-of-other-people-redskins/755167/55 "2016-05-19T21:53:01Z")
> [@Fiveyearlurker](#): > > No, that’s not what I said. What I said is that any survey group of fewer than 50,000 randomly sampled Americans can not contain 504 Native Americans. Do I need to walk through it again? > > 1% of the population of the US is Indian according to the census. This survey had a total of 500 Indians. If those 500 Indians are actually Indian, then the surveyors (who randomly surveyed Americans) had to survey a total of 50000 people (500 is 1% of 50000). It’s not only hard to argue with that, it’s impossible. > > They don’t give this number, but it’s pretty damn unlikely that they surveyed 50000 people. It’s much more likely that their survey pulled up way higher than 1% of their subjects identifying as Indian. > > And the reason for that higher hit rate is likely because most of those 500 Indians are pretending to be Indians. It nicely explains why polls that ascertain that those being surveyed are actually Indian, come up with a [very different](http://cips.csusb.edu/docs/PressRelease.pdf) answer. > > . They could well have surveys far more than 50000, since this wasnt one survey. It was ALL the surveys conducted over a five month period: \*The survey was conducted in conjunction with weekly national surveys of U.S. adults reached through a random sample of cellular and landline telephones conducted by Social Science Research Solutions of Media, Pa. Toward the end of a survey on a range of topics, respondents who identified their race as Native American were asked a series of questions on views of the Redskins team name and Native American imagery in sports. While Native Americans account for about 2 percent of the total population, the survey’s extended field period from December to April reached 504 Native American respondents. \* 44 percent of those in the final survey were “currently enrolled as a member with a Native American tribe” which means they were’t “Pretend Indians”. And the Post used one of the most respected pollsters in the business. ---
**Author:** ![Fiveyearlurker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/da6949/32.png) [@Fiveyearlurker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fiveyearlurker)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2016, 9:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/getting-offended-on-behalf-of-other-people-redskins/755167/56 "2016-05-19T21:53:58Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > Nope. The US Government has ruled that each Tribe legally gets to decide who is a “Indian”. If you are not a recognized member of a recognized tribe (USA) you are not a “Indian”. Double nope. Race on the census form (which is what we’re discussing because the people pretending to be Indian are coming in at a higher rate than the census predicts) is self identified. Tribal affiliation has nothing to do with it. I’ve been sharing a bed for two decades with someone who has only been enrolled for a few years, but has been Indian in the census since she was born. ---
**Author:** ![Fiveyearlurker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/da6949/32.png) [@Fiveyearlurker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fiveyearlurker)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2016, 9:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/getting-offended-on-behalf-of-other-people-redskins/755167/57 "2016-05-19T21:57:19Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > They could well have surveys far more than 50000, since this wasnt one survey. It was ALL the surveys conducted over a five month period: > > 44 percent of those in the final survey were “currently enrolled as a member with a Native American tribe” which means they were’t “Pretend Indians”. > > And the Post used one of the most respected pollsters in the business. Like I said, they could have surveyed more than 50000, but they haven’t shown their math. It’s an extraordinary number to have surveyed, and requires showing the number to believe it. And, no 44 percent in the final survey self reported that they were currently enrolled as a member of a tribe. However, polls that actually ascertain that the person being surveyed is actually Indian have found a completely different result (cited above). ---
**Author:** ![BigT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bigt/32/12044_2.png) [@BigT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigT)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2016, 10:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/getting-offended-on-behalf-of-other-people-redskins/755167/58 "2016-05-19T22:18:26Z")
Even if they think it means “noble warrior,” that’s just another racist stereotype, like naming your math decathlon team the “Orientals” because they are smart. And let’s not forget that it is not celebrating the heritage of the people there, and is instead used the same way animal names are used. And, of course, the racist shit that TriPolar mentioned. As for the OP: I’m not offended on behalf of anyone. I’m not saying I never am, but, in this case, the fact that “redskin” is a slur is just established, so it doesn’t matter one bit if no Indian found it offensive. It’s a racist slur that promotes racist actions and I do not support it. And I am actually behind pulling the trademark–because it was known to be a slur at the time. So it was racist to name them that in the first place. And I fully support the exception in trademark law and do not see it as a freedom of speech issue. Trademarks are not merely speech. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2016, 10:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/getting-offended-on-behalf-of-other-people-redskins/755167/59 "2016-05-19T22:21:23Z")
> [@Fiveyearlurker](#): > > Like I said, they could have surveyed more than 50000, but they haven’t shown their math. It’s an extraordinary number to have surveyed, and requires showing the number to believe it. > > And, no 44 percent in the final survey self reported that they were currently enrolled as a member of a tribe. However, polls that actually ascertain that the person being surveyed is actually Indian have found a completely different result (cited above). You find it hard to believe that one of the biggest polling companies in America pools a mere 10000 Americans _a month_? That’s peanuts. Which post? ---
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2016, 10:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/getting-offended-on-behalf-of-other-people-redskins/755167/60 "2016-05-19T22:27:21Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > Uh, no. The classification of “redskin” as an ethnic slur is based on, e.g., standard dictionary usage, as in [Merriam-Webster’s designation](http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/redskin) “_usually offensive_” for it. > > This is no new development, either: as [this article points out](http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2013/10/redskin-definition-dictionary-merriam-webster-contemptuous-offensive), various dictionaries have been classifying the ethnic descriptor “redskin” as a pejorative for over a century: > > I’d be surprised if you can find a US dictionary edition within the past twenty years that doesn’t acknowledge the pejorative nature of the term “redskin”. This is most certainly not just a flash-in-the-pan phenomenon of people gratuitously seeking something to be offended about. > > In fact, **even people who support keeping “Redskins” as the Washington team name mostly agree that the term in ordinary usage nowadays counts as an ethnic slur** , as [this 2013 article notes:](http://www.npr.org/sections/codeswitch/2013/09/09/220654611/are-you-ready-for-some-controversy-the-history-of-redskin) These are fair points. Nonetheless, if the vast majority of members of the group in question think it’s not offensive then it’s not offensive regardless of any dictionary, and if it’s not offensive it’s not an ethnic slur. I’m wondering if it depends on context. I doubt if even people who don’t find it offensive in the context of team names (and apparently various Native American athletic teams also use the name) would use it do describe individual Native Americans. Even your various dictionary entries seem to acknowledge this, in saying things like “_usually_ offensive” which would indicate that it’s not _always_ offensive. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/getting-offended-on-behalf-of-other-people-redskins/755167.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/getting-offended-on-behalf-of-other-people-redskins/755167.md?page=4)