On messageboards there are sometimes summaries of data presented of articles that are behind paywalls and inaccessible to me. My habit is to presume that those summaries of the data are accurate and to critique the article under that presumption unless shown to be otherwise. My norm is to get as close to the original source material as can with reasonable effort. Reasonable effort led me to a subscription page this time. No, I do not generally feel the need when quoting a post and responding to the data contained within it, to qualify my response with a disclaimer of “Unless you are misrepresenting or misunderstand the data presented then …”
But yes WaPo does in fact potentially have a dog in this fight.
Didn’t read the whole thread, so don’t know if it was mentioned, but if I owned the team I’d send them onto the field with a potato on their helmet when the season starts. Would that be satisfactory, just changing the mascot?
Don’t know if it was mentioned?!? Why most of the discussion in this thread has been about the possibility of Redskins players wearing potatoes on their helmets. Debate has been raging over whether this would be satisfactory.
You really should have read the thread before posting that …
Yeah, I don’t think any significant name-change advocates ever seriously suggested that the Redskins name is a deliberate attempt to be offensive. The point is simply that as an acknowledged ethnic slur, even if a comparatively mild one, the word is inappropriate for use as the official name of a sports team.
When I asked spifflog earlier in the thread to show us how many Native American schools had adopted the word “redskin” or “redskins” to describe their mascot, he basically told me to google it myself and frankly that’s not a satisfactory answer to a request for someone to back up their claim and/or present us with facts.
So, Giraffes Can’t Dance, how many Native American schools have adopted the name “Redskins” as their mascot?
Yes. That doesn’t mean that anyone has asserted that the name was adopted in order to insult or because it’s insulting. It was adopted with disregard to its negative connotations. Connotations attach regardless of intent.
Anything can be twisted into something negative. What some ignorant racists do with their own time is irrelevant.
The name was meant to, and still represents, strength in the Native-American culture. “Redskins” refers to specific tribes whom painted their faces red. These tribes, as well as the ritual of painting ones face in that culture, represents something truly admirable.
So because some pieces of garbage translate the meaning of “Redskins” perversely, we should bow to their ignorance? Come on. There is a reason that Native Americans remain largely unfazed by the name; because they understand it’s true meaning.
Bored white people must halt the practices of adopting offense on behalf of minorities. Such a practice isn’t just self-righteous and self-serving, but they also expose the left’s soft racism, in that they believe that they are superior in intellect to the “incapable” minorities.
Snowboarder Bo, I did say that you are free to Google yourself, and it is a satisfactory answer. As long at there is at least one, the question is valid. I’m not playing Simon says with you.
Do you actually have a response to this question that at least two posters have asked you? Or are you just going to continue to avoid answering it under the guise that you need an exact count of the schools involved?
According to research performed by the University of Maryland College of Journalism, as of 2013 there were 62 high schools whose mascot was the “Redskins.” 28 others had changed the name to something else sometime in the past 25 years.
Of these 62 schools, there are at least 3 high schools who are majority Native American: Red Mesa HS in Teec Nos Pos, Arizona, Wellpinit HS in Wellpinit, Washington, and Kingston HS in Kingston, Oklahoma.
The author writes of how the WaPo reporter wrote his story exploited the children from Red Mesa High School in order to obtain material for his story and then what he wrote was either ignorant of or ignoring the context surrounding Red Mesa High School, the Navajo people who’s children attend the school, etc. After she debunks the 2004 study that so many people love to quote (and I believe the same complaint holds true for the newer study that the WaPo commissioned), she talks about why the issue is important beyond being an offensive racial slur, which is the most important aspect of it, I think:[
No, it’s absolutely not a satisfactory answer. When asked for a cite for a specific claim, telling the requester “google it yourself” is the exact opposite of supporting your own claim. it is a blatant attempt to shift responsibility for providing the citation to the requester and is indefensible as a response. I have no desire to play games with you; that is why I didnt respond to your last, puerile post. If you didn’t want to play children’s school games with me, you should have just provided a cite.
As Acsenray has pointed out, just because a word is widely recognized and generally acknowledged to be a slur or derogatory term doesn’t mean that every use of it is intended to be derogatory. The people who object to the word “redskin” as a sports team name are not claiming that Dan Snyder or any Redskins fans are actually trying to be offensive to Native Americans. They’re simply arguing that since the word is a recognized slur, it doesn’t belong in the name of a sports team.
As I pointed out earlier in the thread, this “perverse” interpretation of “Redskins” as a derogatory term is attested in standard dictionaries over at least the past century.
Yes, it would be nice if no ethnic designation ever was used in a derogatory sense. But when derogatory associations with ethnic designations have become widespread and recognized enough that they’re mentioned in official dictionary definitions of those terms, it’s no use just sticking your head in the sand and refusing to acknowledge that the term is in fact derogatory.
Sorry, but the “pieces of garbage” have won the linguistic battle to make the word “redskin” unfit for polite discourse, just as they’ve done with words like “chink” and “yid” and “spic” and “broad”. It’s too late, at least for the time being, to try to claim or reclaim any such words as neutral or non-offensive.