I am a football fan who works with football fans in an office that has football fan clients who are American Indians. Nobody in this circle of people likes the name of Washington’s team. Step back for a second and take a look at how truly insulting the situation is: From the national level:
American Indian tribes have a government to government relationship with the United States. The United States government is based in the federal district of Washington, DC. DC, in turn has a professional team is named after a disparaging term for the individuals who make up the governments that deal directly with the federal government.
Analogy: Foreign nations also have a gov-gov relationship with the feds. What if DC’s team was named the Washington Frogs, with some asshole in a beret and a striped shirt as a mascot? Think France would stand for that? How about naming them the Montanan Yahoos? There’s just as many Montanans as there are Indians, after all. From the racial level:
Thirty-plus years of civil rights has forced restaurants to change their names (remember Sambo’s, anyone?), driven classic films underground (Song of the South), threatened the teaching of classic literature to our children (Huck Finn), and threatened pancakes and breakfast cereals with extinction. Yet decades after this has begun, people are sentimental about another racial slur and stereotype, apparently because it isn’t one of the same ones we are used to being offended by.
Analogy: Well of course it’s uncool to have Yul Brenner play a Thai king. But Al Jolson in blackface is a completely different thing. For example, it’s older, and in black and white. From the individual level:
If a team were called the Brownsville Wetbacks, you wouldn’t dare talk about the 'Backs to your hispanic pals. Come on. Be honest. You would instead be uncomfortably dancing around it. That’s what I as a football fan get to do every day. And my Indian friends who are fans, they get to hear a term that is just as disparaging as “chink” tossed around on ESPN every single day.
Analogy: Well, I already gave it.
Just think about this for a while before you flame my imperfect argument. Know this: there are people who are offended by this name and by this term, on several levels. I guarantee you wouldn’t like it on the receiving end.
Sofa Thanks for a very good post. You showed how the opinions against racial slurs is not necessarily confined to the slurees.
Sentimental? I guess. But as to why it hasn’t changed when other symbols in society have? MONEY Professional sports generates monies that can only be dreamed of. And big money talks.
The Redskins name will change. It just will take a little longer. It will change before Patrick’s mind will.
[hijack]
You know, it’s a damn shame that the abovementioned PETA took over the peta.com website from the group People Eating Tasty Animals.
[/hijack]
Now to toss my hat into the ring…
One of the great things about the U.S. is that the majority is not supposed to trod on the rights of the minority, i.e., the individual. I daresay there is no individual harm in keeping the name of the Redskins. If you, as an individual, have been harmed by the use of the name, sue the team for emotional distress or something like that. Then go get laughed out of the courts and let me get back to watching my football game.
::cracks open a cold beer and sticks hand in pants::
But this is already the subject of a court action, an action that took eight years to ajudicate and is now being appealed by the Washingtons.
And the suit wasn’t based on emotional distress, but rather that the Washingtons violated the Lanham Act, which prohibits the use of offensive symbols in Federal trademarks.
Unfortunately, the Lanham Act isn’t more specific than what was stated above so there is a lot of room for the lawyers to argue either way.
I do think that if Washington adopted a new nickname, it would still do well because it would be able to sell a whole new batch of licensed gear.
BobT and I have agreed to disagree, which is fine. Maybe I should nominate myself as the most stubborn poster on the mundane pointless board. Now as for samclem:
I stand by my post. Empathy is, “the ability to share in another’s feelings or emotions.” Websters New World Dictionary, 2d College Ed. (1980) I believe I used the word “empathy” correctly.
OK, not to be overly sensitive, and even though Catholicism* is a minority among world religions, “goofy crucifixes” seems a little over the top. It takes away some of the validity of your idea, which is to respect symbols used in religious ceremonies. Although I’m not sure how seriously you meant it, anyway.
And Christians who allow items like crucifixes.
[/end hijack]
To take the distinction farther, I thought the correct usage was of an individual’s tribal affiliation. “Indian”, after all, and even Native “American” are names applied by the invador.
I was listening to NPR and they had on someone who redid a bunch of blac showtunes from the turn of the century. The host asked a great question about how it is performing those songs with some rather… antiquated terms, colloquialisms and ideas that were quite racist.
The musician admitted that some of the lines in the songs made him, a black american living in present times, shake his head. But he felt that it was important to the integrity of the art that he not change anything from the original works just to placate modern sensibilities.
I think some of that attitude needs to be addressed here. These team names go back many years to a different time and place. They might reach back and dredge up feelings from people and might even offend I suppose.
Well, I don’t think this is necessarily a bad thing. I mean, I would not want to see an adaptation of Al Jolson’s work to be cleaned up for the kinder, more sensitive ears and eyes of our generation. I do not want to see a remake of Gone With The Wind where the roles are dialogue are significantly changed simply because our sensibilities have changed.
I also don’t want teams changing their names because of this for the same reason. I realize that one is art and the other is not, but I make this analogy as someone who both pines for a time when tradition DID matter in sports and also as someone who can watch ancient footage of baseball and football and totally appreciate it.
Whatever it was that I did, I apologize profoundly.
My 2¢- I do not find names like ‘Warriors’,‘Braves’, or even ‘Indians’ offensive, they are given to invoke the spirit and image of pride and the idea of “The Noble Savage”, but I do think ‘Redskins’ should go. (even though my childhood hero was John Riggins)
I fail to see how promoting the stereotype of the “noble savage” is helpful or desirable.
It is no more accurate than the stereotype of the “dirty redskin”.
Lies should not be promoted. Nor, particularly here, should ignorance.
A lot of times the phrase used is “taking offense”. Or I “take offense” at that. This implies that one must “take or take up” which is an action verb and also implies a choice. If someone decides to choose to be offended because personnally I tire of having political correctness thrust down my throat by every bleeding heart who wishes that my emotions and feelings were just like theirs…then I must admit to my insensitivity. I also recommend that to help save the environment (i.e.reducing noxious emmissions), reduce global warming (reducing CO2 released), and save endangered species (I admit to being called a dinosaur, LOL), please direct the whining to someone who really thinks this isn’t down right silly.
I didn’t say that the stereotype was “helpful or desirable”, I said that I didn’t find offensive as a name for a sports team. The “noble savage” has been the predominant image of the aboriginal American since the counterculture* “found” them in the 1960s. It is the ideas of nobility (read “sportsmanship”) and savagery that the teams are trying to convey with their names. But to be completely PC I guess a team would need to title itself “The team that finds certain traits of the Ho-Chunk tribe’s warrior society to be admirable (even though they had no need for a warrior society until us Europeans arrived, and we apologize)”. Easier to say “Braves” in my opinion.
*-better not say “hippies”, who knows what kind of prejudicial images that could conjure up.
Patrick At to whether “sympathy” or “empathy” is the better choice of words: without consulting a dictionary, I would offer this distinction–If you were a Jew who had been hit upon all your life because of your religion/ethnicity, you could “empathize” with a “redskin”.
I, as a white, middle-class Anglo-Saxon Protestant, blah-blah-blah, who happens to be an old-style liberal who believes in championing peoples rights who are less fortunate than I, have sympathy for the “redskins.”
I can never hope to feel what they do. You can make fun of me, call me a honky or whatever, but I can never “know” what it is to feel what a Redskin/nigger/kike/faggot/chink/ feels when someone calls me a name or continues to make a remark that, even inadvertantly, perpetuates a stereotype.
I would find the team name “Noble Savages” offensive. So what? If someone wants to be an insensitive jerk then they have that right. This is certainly not the foremost problem facing Natives. Nor is it the only reason to dislike the Washington NFL franchise.
Daniel Snyder doesn’t care about sensitivity. Or about money or the integrity of the game. All he cares about is winning. So it is unlikely that he will do anything about the nickname of his team. The only debate then is whether the people who are offended are overreacting. I would be interested in sound arguments as to why “redskin” is not derogatory. Until then I will avoid promoting this stereotype.
Since when do individuals have the right to not be offended? I guess I am somewhat confused (scratches head). Doesn’t it say pursuit of happiness? It says nothing about catching it!!! I happen to get very offended (LOL)when people try to insist that I must feel like they feel! Com’on!! It’s just a football team, or basketball team, or hockey, or whatever!! There is NO political agenda at work here. Take a deep breathe and just leave it be. If anything its the whiny crybabies tring to get a soapbox to promote their agenda of the moment. Screw PC!!! Takes up way to much time and energy. Needlessly!!!
Samclem, you don’t give yourself enough credit. You are a human being with a functioning brain, so you can indeed know what it is like without having personally experienced it. That’s what our brains are for, for us to use in understanding things. Personal experience is not the sole way the people learn, save for those stupid people who don’t believe “wet paint” signs, and have to touch the wall themselves to see whether the paint is still wet or not.
Phil_15 I never said that “individuals have the right to not be offended”. I tried and tried, but I couldn’t find where I said this. Then you brought up the Constitution
which was not a part of this thread, at least as far as my posts are concerned. I don’t know what the Constitution has to do with this. I don’t want you to feel like they feel. I’m sure you can’t.
As to whether this is a PC argument, I agree with you that there are many PC things in today’s world that are BS. Many. And they irk me no end.
Well, I have been sitting here trying to imagine what taking a “shower” was like at Dachau. And then I tried to imagine what being hung for “looking” the wrong way at a white woman was like. But, so far, I haven’t been able to feel what it was REALLY like. Perhaps I’m doing something wrong.
Sorry for the confusion! I was referring to your last post where you mentioned “championing people’s rights” and my point was that people DO NOT have the right to not be offended. Everyone has an opinion. In today’s PC environment a lot of folks seem to believe that means that they have a Godgiven mandate to not have their feelings stepped on by an occasional dumbass.
Re: Redskins et al.This is a PC discussion in that the Redskins and lots of other teams have had the names for years, but now that there is a “sensitivity” to these kind of issues, groups of various kinds head for the soapbox. Why wasn’t it brought up before if it is such a problem? Frankly, I believe it’s the bandwagon effect with one whacko coalition after another trying to find whatever means possible to enter the spotlight. So yes I think it is another form of PC.
This may be a PC argument, but the opponents of the Washington NFLers are using a valid law (The Lanham Act) on the books to take their action. The nickname in question here clearly falls under the classification of “commercial speech” and it is not granted the same First Amendment protections that other forms of speech get. Also, the Washington NFLers primary argument is that changing the nickname will cost the team money, not that it is not offensive.
And as to the opinion that Native Americans didn’t complain back when the name is chosen isn’t particularly persuasive. Are there any records that Native American groups approved of the name at the time? I doubt that many did. However in the 1930s, the political opinions of Native Americans counted for even less than they do today, which isn’t much.
And in the Boston area (where the nickname first originated), Native Americans were few and far between in the 1930s.
I don’t see the question is whether or not the nickname is offensive, but rather, is it right to profit from the use of an offensive nickname to sell merchandise.
Samchem, there are great differences between people killed by the Nazis or lynched by the KKK with being offended by a football team logo. Your argument is as silly as saying there’s no difference between a person having a fatal heart attack and having one’s heart broken by a 9th grade girlfriend.
If anything its the whiny crybabies tring to get a soapbox to promote their agenda of the moment. Screw PC!!! Takes up way to much time and energy. Needlessly!!!