RoR: Forum

I disagree, Ed. The fact that this travesty is 80 years old does not excuse it. I am radically opposed to humans as mascots, but I can grant that given the culture, some norms are less offensive than others: the Vikings, the Cowboys, the Pirates. The Boston Braves football team - allowable, like the Michigan State Spartans - became the Redskins at time when racism was not yet defeated, but in fact was widely accepted. Eugenics had not yet been discredited. The US Army was racially segregated, as was the entire nation and much of the world.

At that time, mainly the communists (and others on the left) maintained the theory that all workers are workers and that "race" was only one of many artificial barriers that the ruling class uses to divide people and conquer them all. Some other enlightened mainstream liberals of the time also understood the real issues. Read John Marshall Harlan's eloquent dissent to Plessy v. Ferguson.

Unlike Braves, Warriors, or Hurons (the former mascots of my alma mater before they became the Eagles), Redskins is offensive. It always was. Offensive names are part of the culture of competitive sports. Purdue has the Boilermakers, but no textile town ever fielded the Doilymakers. I personally would like to see the Irish of Notre Dame just be the Irish (though why not the French is not clear to me). The Fighting Irish is just another way to say the Drunken Irish. The New Jersey Guidos, te Seattle Japs, the Cleveland Bohunks, the Chicago Pollacks, the Parkersburg Hillbillies, the Milwaukee Nazis. You know when you are being offended.

On a deeper level, I question competitive team sports. I prefer to compete against myself, bettering my times, my scores, my averages, my rounds, or whatever. On that same deeper level, back about 30 years ago, I was a taxicab driver in East Lansing. MSU hosted an international physics conference. A new element was verified. They did not get 60,000 people into Spartan Stadium for that. In a rational world they would have.

The Washington Redskins football team is an icon of everything that is wrong with collectivism.

Post 1

Thursday, October 24, 2013 - 4:23pm

LOL, I think this was great!

"The term is most prominent in the name of the Washington Redskins, a National Football League football team. The team was founded in 1932 and was originally known as the Boston Braves, for their landlords, the baseball team called the Boston Braves. In 1933 the name was changed to the synonymous Boston Redskins when the team left Braves Field for Fenway Park, the home of the Boston Red Sox. Some accounts state that the name "Redskins" was chosen to honor the team's coach, William "Lone Star" Dietz, who began coaching in 1933, and whose mother was allegedly Sioux. In 1937 the team moved and joining Capitol Hill as the second football team of Washington, D.C., became the Washington Redskins.[41]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redskin_(slang)

It took the offended 35 years to get all offended by the name.

Post 2

Thursday, October 24, 2013 - 5:56pm

Tangent: I heard on Glenn Beck that the Washington Redskins team (or owners of the team) donates more than 95% to republicans and less than 5% to democrats.

Leaving the tangent aside, I'm at least 1/10th Polish and at least 1/10th German (and possibly more than 1/4th of each!). The reason I'm not sure is because I never checked it out -- because lineage/heritage is metaphysically unimportant toward being a human being (unless you have a heritable -- or is it: inheritable? -- disease). If you call me disparaging names based on lineage/heritage (e.g., stupid Pollack!), I will yawn. Your words will just roll off my shoulder. After letting you vent, I might try to persuade you about the unimportance of lineage/heritage in living a human life. If I cannot persuade you, then I will personally consider you to be at least temporarily guilty of race-based collectivism (which is a pretty bad thing to be guilty of -- though it's not the end of the world).

This personal consideration would be true whether you are the one hurling the insult, or whether you are the one "offended" by it.

Ed

(Edited by Ed Thompson on 10/24, 6:00pm)

Post 3

Thursday, October 24, 2013 - 7:42pm

IIRC, the Ayn Rand collective had two squads for softball, the Attilas and the Witch Doctors. When playing city league, they were the Barbarians.

On Deep Space Nine, baseball was a constant theme. The station commander gets a ship of Vulcans to field a team and the holodeck is programmed. The station's team is called the Niners. The Vulcans are the Logicians. Allusions are made in other episodes to the London Kings before baseball was abandoned on Earth.

The US Naval Academy calls themselves merely The Midshipmen, whereas the US Military Academy at West Point fields the Black Knights. The Air Force Academy mascot is a Falcon, appropriately enough.

Group identity in a combat simulation remains a vestige of the tribe, which, in fact, what Clevelanders call the Indians: "Tribe over Yankees in 10 innings."

(Edited by Michael E. Marotta on 10/24, 8:34pm)

Post 4

Saturday, October 26, 2013 - 5:25pm

Michael - I'm afraid we must agree to disagree. If the millions of fans used the term Redskins over the decade meaning no offense and if no offense was taken by the alleged targets of the slur, then the term is offensive either intrinsically, out of any context, or in some Platonic-Kantian other realm. Words do change meanings and usages over time. But in this case it seems liberals are looking for reasons to be offended, to which I say "Too bad!"

Teresa's text is also most instructive. And while don't have confirming links, I understand that some Native American teams (high school?) have used the name Redskins. Also that the first recorded use of the term was by an Indian chief on a treaty, referring to his own people.

Post 5

Sunday, October 27, 2013 - 12:20pm

'Drunken Reservation Rats' would be somewhat more offensive. In a perfect world that would be the 'skins new name.

whats next? Oklahoma Sooners going to need to change their name for fear of offending men who suffer from premature ejaculation?

Post 6

Monday, October 28, 2013 - 2:40pm

We just worked our way through all four seasons of Star Trek:Enterprise. One of the continuing characters is the Andoran starship captain, Shran. Shran proves to be a loyal friend of the Terrans. Even as his beloved is treacherously killed by a Tellerite diplomat, Shran continues to support the tripartite alliance. At the end of the Third Season, while our good close personal friends and careful overseers the Vulcans are very busy very far away, it is Shran who runs interference so that Enterprise can save Earth.

All through this, Shran insults Captain Jonathan Archer by calling him "pinkskin." The term obviously becomes an ironic play on his initial contempt. Never never never does Archer return the insult. Never.

In the Original Series, Kirk is captured by an evil inmate posing as the psychiatrist. His mind is being warped in a devilish machine. He is told to order the ship to surrender (or whatever) and Commander Spock balks. Kirk calls him a greenskinned traitor (or something like that). Spock settles the problem. Kirk beats up the bad guy. Back on the bridge, Kirk asks Spock how he knew not to obey the order. Spock replies that the racialist reference to his skin color was completely at odds with reason and Kirk's known attitudes.

In that future, it would be contrary to every precept of equality on Earth to insult another human being by calling attention to the color of their skin. We suffered too much because of that.

It should be so today.

Call them the Warriors or the Braves. Call them the Senators, the Bureaucrats, or the Looters.

Freddo wrote 'Drunken Reservation Rats' would be somewhat more offensive. In a perfect world that would be the 'skins new name.

If you knew anything about the misery of the res, you would not be so flip. You understand quite well the cultural nadir of Dakha Bangladesh. Objectivists are very good at explaining away the looting of the continent. Granted, also, that shown the potential of becoming shoemakers and blacksmiths, the Natives choose to ignore the tide of history. I can only think of the line from National Lampoon: Two wrongs don't make a right, but three do.

Ed Hudgins: Michael - I'm afraid we must agree to disagree. If the millions of fans used the term Redskins over the decade meaning no offense and if no offense was taken by the alleged targets of the slur, then ...

Ed, you offered nothing but apocryphal statistics. Even if a validated poll found that 99% of Native Americans found the term acceptable, that would not remove the objective problem. (In fact, no such poll exists, only isolated unvalidated statements; but, again, we know that morality is not a matter of arithmetic.) What if most people including business owners had a "negative view" of robber barons? You would find that cause for great worry.

Ed Thompson: "... I'm at least 1/10th Polish and at least 1/10th German.... If you call me disparaging names based on lineage/heritage (e.g., stupid Pollack!), I will yawn.

But the team in question is not being fielded from a reservation. These are not the New Mexco Acoma Redskins. Even if it were and they chose that name, it would remain objectively a racist denigration of an artibrary collective.

That said, we knew nothing of "Jersey Shore" until we watched a reference episode on "Bones" last season. In fact, when I completed my bachelor's in criminology administration, and began applying for management opportunities, I paid a national agency to run a background check on me, just to make sure that I did not have a cousin Mikey under RICO indictment in New Jersey. Still, calling the New Jersey Nets the New Jersey Guidos would not be personally insulting, but would remain philosophicaly incorrect.

(Edited by Michael E. Marotta on 10/28, 3:22pm)

Post 7

Monday, October 28, 2013 - 3:18pm

Marotta continues his "racialist" rant. And in the rant it is clear that he means "racist" - and that it is an insult to refer to another's skin color (ignoring that racism is about attaching character traits to racial difference, thus making what Marotta does just a large game of political correctness with language where the elite far left get to call people names, as long as the names don't have skin color associated with them).
-----------

He says, "If you knew anything about the misery of the res, you would not be so flip. I remember that the secretary of the Interior under Reagan had to resign because it caused such an uproar when he said, that if you want to socialism at work, just go look at an Indian reservation. Now, with Tribal casinos, you also get to see another side of socialism: Crony Capitalism. Some Indians get very wealthy and some are poor as dirt. But these aren't ghettos like in Warsaw - no one is forced to live there. These are hotbeds of political activism by parasites where membership is done on purely racial terms -I mean their biggest fights among themselves are over what blood percentage Indian one has to be to reach into the money bag.

Marotta doesn't want to hear any of that, because the liberal craziness is that the socioeconomic status as measured by skin color is sancrosact as a cause, while at the same time he says that there are no races.

Post 8

Tuesday, October 29, 2013 - 6:00am

Mike:

If you knew anything about the misery of the res, you would not be so flip.

Who was being flip? Merely incomplete. In a perfect world, their name would be 'The Drunken Reservation Rats', the new owners would be the last remaining actual warriors from 'FoxWood,' who would toast their new good fortune with copious amounts of the finest Yukon Jack, spitting at the spectacle of a nation of flaming pussies whining on about being called nasty names like Kike, Spic, Dego, Wop, Porch Monkey, Pollack, Jap, Guido, Hunky, and especially pussy.

Oh how some love to whip out the pictures of the sores of long ago as proof of ...what? Life on earth?

Oh, those terrible, terrible reservations. Desert slums.

Oh, those death trap coal mines and steel mills and galvanize shops and, well, all the places that barely exist anymore.

Oh, those death trap railroads being blasted across America(I remembered the hunkies but left out the chinks above, sorry.)

Oh, those ghettos in Warsaw.

Oh, those camps in Poland, Germany.

Oh, those 're-education' camps in Kampuchea and Vietnam.

Oh, those jungle villages in Rwanda.

Oh, those ignorant crowded slums in Dhaka with the rickshaw drivers flying through space, learning about physics.

Oh, the high price of Grey Goose at those Bistros in Georgetown, cheering for the 'skins.

The earth today: 99% gruesome atrocities by seething local tribal maniacs in some completely unfettered tribal state, 1% thin veneer of resort life within taxi cab fare of an international airport, where we are guaranteed to find both a Starbucks and Mrs. Fields.

Not surprisingly, all the pussies are jammed up in that 1%, frettingly munching on their Macademia nut chocolate chips.

I am mixed guido, taff, kraut, and limey. The guido side was apparently the spawn of an ex-italian convict. The other mutt-mixture was from some of coal minings most average citizens, enjoying the good life deep under ground after having pushed native Americans off the topsoil.

'White man's guilt' isn't just sold, it must also be bought. It is also necessary to sign up with white liberals in order to help them assuage their guilt, as no dout often expressed in some of Georgetown's finest bistros, complete with that over-rpiced Grey Goose.

When there is no signing up, no buying of the offered guilt, the attempt is usually received with a great deal of mirth.

I lied; in a perfect world, it is 1972, and some guilt peddlar comes into that steel plant locker-room, stands up on a bench, and makes the weepy plea for contrition to a room full of mouth breathing, knuckle dragging polacks--and then, translated into cheese eating surrender monkey: Laissez les bons temps rouler

regards,
Fred

PS: I just learned about 'taff.' Prior to that, I thought the derogatory term for 'welshman' was 'welshman.'

(Edited by Fred Bartlett on 10/29, 6:30am)

Post 9

Wednesday, October 30, 2013 - 6:41am

The undisputed world heavywieght genius on this topic was and still is Dave Chapelle. Complete genius at seeing this for what it is, and speaking to it clearly.

Dave Chapelle does not run screaming from the room in the face of hurtful racism; he runs right at it, and lances it like a pus laden boil, screaming 'fuck that shit!' the whole way, rendering it ... impotent to do any actual harm.

Turning it into incurable cancer and weeping at telethons just does the opposite; it empowers racism to do harm. It has also turned racism into a perpetual industry.

Chapelle is genius-- just like Mel Brooks, same mold.

Saw his Oprah interview. He had some misgivings about others reception of his public efforts, and the stress of public and private success. Well, that was his success, and his misgivings, and his to deal with as he chooses, he earned all of it, including the right to deal with it as he chooses.

(Edited by Fred Bartlett on 10/31, 6:39am)

Post 10

Friday, November 1, 2013 - 6:04am

Sorry, Fred. On your recommendation, I went to YouTube and watched David Chapelle. Ho-hum. A lot of obscenities around some wisecracks. When he got to race, all I heard was poverty. By that I mean that in the riffs about Blacks, and Latinos, and Whites, all I heard was poor versus rich. In other words, the things that he attributed to race-as-culture were independent of color lines. He was not very insightful. But he was vulgar and crude, if that is comedy.

Post 11

Friday, November 1, 2013 - 9:47am

Michael:

Well, thank God his race can count on erudite white liberals to show them grace, and keep them on the dependency plantation, and so on.

I think after decades of being the last great hope for black freedom, we white instructoids spewing out of academia tend to lose our ear a bit.

I'm not sure which is funnier; white academics passing judgment on how blacks comment on the state of racism in America, or white academics claiming to be the last true friends of the working man, back from my memories of those steel and fab plants. I got to tell you; both are pretty frickin' hilariuos.

If I could have one meaningless wish granted, it would be to see some of these erudite lectures givin in those steel plant locker rooms. Now that would be some education...

regards,
Fred

Post 12

Thursday, February 13, 2014 - 11:56am

Two members of Congress wrote a letter to the NFL commissioner about the Washington Redskins name (link). Two others cosponsor a bill to strip the NFL of its tax exempt status. A Forbes article notes the silliness (link). The NFL has lost money its last 2 years. This is about the NFL strictly speaking, which considers itself a trade association made up of and financed by its 32 member teams. NFL teams are not tax-exempt.

(Edited by Merlin Jetton on 2/13, 1:30pm)

Post 13

Thursday, February 13, 2014 - 8:23pm

Liberals aren't saying, "I think 'redskin' is offensive"

Rather, one is labeled a 'liberal' when one says, "It's clear that native americans themselves find 'redskin' offensive. In this respect, count me in.

No one has a right to say that others shouldn't be offended by epithets or racial slurrs. if someone feels that a particular name is offensive, then it is.

Post 14

Friday, February 14, 2014 - 3:22am

Liberals aren't saying, "I think 'redskin' is offensive."

The following from the letter says you are wrong. "We believe that the fact that this term does not honor - but rather disparages - Indian people and tribes is what will and should guide federal policymakers."

(Edited by Merlin Jetton on 2/14, 3:55am)

Post 15

Friday, February 14, 2014 - 6:27pm

Your citation is not an example of liberal thought. Rather, it's a memo from someone who's been incorrectly labeleled 'liberal' by someone elsewho wants to call those with whom he disagrees 'liberal'.

True liberalism--and I'm referring to the original term that was used by the original advocates of free markets-- says that no one has a right to choose for another what should or should not be deemed offensive.

In other words, the idiot who 'decides' for the native american that 'redskin should sound offensive is just as idiotic as the guy in the jersey that claims to the contrary. Liberalsim says that it's not their call.

Eva

Post 16

Friday, February 14, 2014 - 6:40pm