I suspect they considered it and then disregarded it, for the same reason we don’t say nigger just because some black people do.
It might purport to be the same reason, but since we’re talking about slurs, it seems clear that we can ask for a closer analogy. That is, your rebuttal would be on point if some Native Americans said “redskin.”
But here we have three examples of high schools with sports teams named Redskin. That goes considerably beyond any use of the n-word even among African Americans…unless you’re aware of any high schools so named?
“So many?”
What, in your view, would be the threshold?
I assume if I announce that as a pagan magick caster, I am offended by the Washington Wizards, that’s not sufficient to require them to change their name.
When does it become “many” people and thus trigger discourtesy?
For a term that has a lot of history behind it as a slur/epithet, the threshhold is probably not very large – maybe thousands of people who belong to the group that the slur historicaly targetted?
“Wizards” is not a slur/epithet (from my understanding), nor does it have any history behind it as such. If this changed, then my opinion might change.
This is not a huge deal. But I think the name should change to a term that was not historically a slur/epithet.
I don’t see how that signifies. Native American groups who employ the term cannot be said to speak for those who don’t. Let’s say a high school in Oakland or Memphis did adopt such a name/mascot. What difference would that make?
It makes a difference because many are arguing that this is such a universally accepted ‘slur’ that it’s a foregone conclusion that it must be removed.
Can you explain to how the word Redskin is so definitively a slur when it is embraced publicly and openly by many of people that you believe should be offended by it?
And I don’t equate the N word in any way with this - until you can show me the predominantly black school that has Ns as their mascot.
So out of the 5,000,000 or so Native Americans, if we can get a couple thousand to say they are offended, that’s enough?
I bet I can get 2,000 Christians to be offended by the term Wizards.
Probably get the same 2,000 Native Americans to be offended by the term Cowboys.
Seems like a pretty low bar.
This will never end.
I am not claiming everyone is offended by it. You should ask those people to explain their own views. It seems clear to me that it is offensive to a substantial number, which is enough.
It would show that the name is not widely regarded as offensive – that those who take offense amount to only a small percentage of the population.
What does “substantial” mean? If a survey reveals a mere 10% are offended, is that substantial?
How would it show that?
Sure.
Really not trying to be myopic here but do you have a definition of “substantial?”
Up thread a proposal as “thousands” which could equate to 2,000. I can get 2,000 people to object to anything.
I think the board said that showing that 20 percent of Native Americans found the term disparaging was sufficient for demonstrating a substantial component of the relevant community.
It did not say that 20 percent was the minimum showing required.
Whether you can get people to say things is irrelevant. I thought you were being facetious with the “wizard” and “cowboy” stuff, but those are not disparaging terms and thus it is immaterial whether Christians or Indians object to them. If Christians are offended by the term “bible-bashers”, that would be different.
Personally, I don’t really get why anyone would find “redskin” offensive - but it’s not directed at me (I’m a dots Indian, not the feathers kind), so my opinion is not material.
I feel I’m getting myself into “dick” territory and I don’t want to be there, so I may bow out of this discussion for a bit.
The reason that I brought Wizards into the mix, is that two of my religious friends brought up wizards because they are bothered by that, as it connotes “black magic” or praying to another god, or some such and they were offended by that. And in America, we can get our fur up about anything, so I’m truly concerned about where this ends once we get the ball rolling. Clearly all of the Native American names will go (Blackhawks, Indians, Chiefs, Braves, Eskimos to mention College names).
So disparaging plus 20% and we are there. It’s a start.
It’s not 2000 people, it’s thousands of people who are members of the group targeted by the slur.
“Wizard” is the male equivalent of “witch”. You don’t think it was ever derogatory? People were burned at the stake for the crime of being a “wizard”. Granted, the majority were women who were burnt as witches, but it was still very much a derogatory word.
I know people who boycott Halloween due to its connotations of witchcraft and wizardry. I guarantee there is a significant number of people (for some definitions of “significant”) who are offended by the Washington Wizards’ name.
If there are a significant number of spellcasters who think the team should change their name, I am very open to hearing their opinions.
As far as I’m concerned, it ends with trademark registration. I don’t think we should ban the word redskin or anything.
Okay. If any of the people who have been called witches (with or without stake-burning) want to make an issue of it, I am willing to entertain their concerns.
ETA: my response is chillingly similar to iiandyiii’s. Maybe he’s a witch!
Unless you’re saying that “Wizard” is used as a disparaging term for Christians, I don’t see how this is relevant.
You’re “truly concerned” about this now? Colleges and schools have been moving away from Native American themed nicknames for decades.
Stanford Indian, Marquette Warrior, Miami Redskins are among those long gone. The NCAA has been pressuring changes for a while now.
How does this logic work when applied to the earlier trademark registration case concerning Dykes on Bikes?