NFL Obama Says Redskins Should Change Their Name

Remove this Banner Ad

Just to be really clear - I'm not 100% supportive of the Chiefs name. If they wanted to be progressive, they'd change it regardless of whether there is large scale, organised opposition - and that would be great.

The point I'm trying to make is trying to draw them into the argument about Washington is completely inappropriate.

"Redskin" is a derogatory term used to deride Native Americans and there is large scale, organised opposition to it.

"Chief" is not - this name is partially offensive in the sense that Kansas City make their money off Native American iconography. There is no large scale opposition to it - there are a couple of representative bodies and opinion columnists.

(edit: I wrote that before your post immediately above mine Chadwiko, but I think it kind of answers it)
 
Chadwiko said:
Woah woah woah, hang on nobbyiscool - you ignored the premise of my question and answered something I didn't ask. No where have I seen Redskins fans, myself included, saying that "it needs to be a majority to validate those who are offended".
Click to expand...

Dude...

Chadwiko said:
If that is your barometer for when a change should be made, find me reliable evidence of a large-scale (majority) Native American opposition to the Redskins name.
Click to expand...
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Except you changed what I said.

I didn't say a "group" of people - I said a significant number of people.

I'm not going to defend things that I didn't say in the first place.

The straw man argument I'm referring to is trying to equate what looks like a small-scale movement being offended by how the Chiefs use that name with a significant portion of people being offended by the (Redskins) name itself.

It's a crap argument!

If we accept the earlier figures that 9% of people are offended by Redskin, that's a significant number of people.

If one peak body representing a few of their own members are offended by Chief, it's not even close to the same thing. (I haven't bought into this group being the reason that "redskin" should be changed anyway - my very first post on this issue was that in my experience, groups like this can not and should not profess to speak for the whole, only for their members... of whom the site doesn't say how many they have - or at least from my quick check.)


A couple of posts up I said that I thought Chief was "partially offensive" in that it cashes in on Native American iconography - it's probably better described as insensitive. But the name in and of itself is not racist or derogatory like Redskin is. You're talking about a completely separate and unrelated issue.

Anyway, I think that'll do me on this issue... You've put up a passionate defence Chadwiko , and I thank you for the time you've put into it.

But you've become increasingly irrational over the last couple of posts in arguing semantics, straw man, and points I didn't make in the first place.
 
Sigh.

Did you study Law by any chance nobbyiscool? You do exactly what a lot of undergrad Law students do; when they don't like the direction an argument is going in, they shift the goal-posts to suit their own motives. :)

Here, i'll make it extremely simple and try and convey my position on the subject via a pantomime.

Timmy: Howdy Chad!
Chad: Hi Timmy. Did you watch any football on the weekend?
Timmy: I sure did! Say, you're a Washington fan, right?
Chad: Yup, I'm a Redskins fan
Timmy: Woah! You shouldn't say "Redskins!" It's racist!
Chad: According to who?
Timmy: According to Native Americans!
Chad: Well, actually a vast majority of Native Americans, over 90%, say it's not racist.
Timmy: It clearly is racist though, it doesn't really matter if a majority or minority of Native Americans feel it's racist. It definitely is.
Chad: Sure I think it's a problematic name. It will change one day. But let's not distort the facts of the issue to make ourselves feel progressive and superior.
Timmy: That's not what opponents of the name are doing! It's just racist, and it needs to be changed!
Chad: I already said I agree it will change.
Timmy: So you agree it's racist?
Chad: That's not for me to say. I'm not a Native American, so instead of making judgements like that, I defer to what the Native Americans themselves think about the name.
Timmy: Well lots of them are opposed to it!
Chad: They sure are Timmy, and I absolutely understand why. But we should be clear; there's no such thing as one homogenous "Native American" community. Some Native Americans are opposed to it, and thats perfectly valid. But as I said, a vast majority are not opposed to it.
Timmy: But even if only some are opposed to it, that should be enough to change it.
Chad: I agree.
Timmy: That settles that, then.
Chad: Okay, but some of the same Native Americans that are opposed to the name "Redskins" also are opposed to the name "Chiefs
Timmy: But... the term "Chiefs" is not inherently racist.
Chad: Says who?
Timmy: Says... me! Common sense say it's not racist!
Chad: According to us as white people. But that's not our call to make. Do you think white people should be allowed to say the N word isn't racist?
Timmy: Oh come on, that's ridiculous. It's totally different!
Chad: It's different to us... it's not different to Native Americans who feel that ANY use of native names or symbols by non-native teams to be a harmful form of ethnic stereotyping, which should be eliminated.
Timmy: Wait, why are we talking about the Chiefs at all? I'm just saying that the term "Redskins" is racist and should be changed!
Chad: That's fine, but i'm demonstrating that the very same rationale used to determine that "Redskins" is racist also defines the "Chiefs", "Indians", "Braves", "Seminoles" and other similar names to be racist.
Timmy: Who cares about what the rationale is? Common sense says "Redskins" is racist!
Chad: And i'm saying that if one of them is racist, they all are.
Timmy: That's ridiculous! You're just being argumentative because you're a Redskins fan.
Chad: No, i'm just telling you what Native Americans themselves are saying. Are you saying that Native Americans are wrong to consider the "Chiefs" and other similar names racist?
Timmy: No... but... look, it's not as bad as "Redskins".
Chad: Says you. Some Native Americans disagree. And you yourself said earlier that "even if only some are opposed to it, that should be enough to change it".
Timmy: ...
Chad: And that's why i'm saying that if one of them is racist, then by definition they all are.
 
You're making it more complicated than it is, Chadwiko

Simply, redskins is a derogatory term. Akin to N;gger, Abo, Blacky, Wop, Wog, etc.

There is definitely a point in the misappropriation of Native American culture and symbolism in a lot of other teams, but they pale in significance.

The MORE important and FIRST step is in the name redskins being changed, and that's why you had many high school and college teams even take the initiative themselves to change their names.

That's the more important and key step to be taken......redskins being such a derogatory term.
 
GG said:
You're making it more complicated than it is, Chadwiko
Click to expand...

And my position is that people such as yourself are over-simplifying the issue.

Yes, "Redskins" is the most egregious example of a more far-reaching issue.

My point is that instead of isolating one example, the discussion should focus on the wider issue.
 
Chadwiko said:
And my position is that people such as yourself are over-simplifying the issue.

Yes, "Redskins" is the most egregious example of a more far-reaching issue.

My point is that instead of isolating one example, the discussion should focus on the wider issue.
Click to expand...

No. The most obvious and most important example is the issue. The term redskins IS the point and the topic. Because it's racist, derogatory, so arcane as those other ones I mentioned, and why it needs to change right away.

Then the wider issue can be discussed after the change has been made, the misappropriation of Native American culture.
 
Chadwiko said:
Sigh.

Did you study Law by any chance nobbyiscool? You do exactly what a lot of undergrad Law students do; when they don't like the direction an argument is going in, they shift the goal-posts to suit their own motives. :)
Click to expand...

There's no way I'm reading the rest of that post given that, as I say, your posts have become increasingly irrational, and I'm certain it once again paints you as the genius and eeeeeveryone else here as the idiots.

I'll only say that it wasn't me who:
- turned a debate about the Redskins into an argument about the Chiefs
- suggests that the Chiefs - an honorary title - is equivalent to Redskin, a clearly derogatory one.
- is trying to claim that the underbelly of discontent around the Chiefs is somehow in the same league as the public outcry about Washingtons name.
- believes he speaks for all Native Americans by saying said outcry is only coming from white people.
- started misquoting people to... as you say, shift the goal posts to suit your own motives.
- despite saying you weren't doing this, went down the typical Washington route of talking about a "majority" of Native Americans despite it being clear to everyone that this point is completely irrelevant.

I thought we were having a respectful back and forth before that post Chadwiko. Obviously you're incapable of doing that for too long.

In hindsight, there were so many clues that I missed...
 
Well nobby and GG, let's review;

I've posted hard data, sourced articles, and direct quotes in support of my position.

You guys have basically done this;

"It's just racist!"

FmWxnNO.png



I get that you guys disagree with me, but at least i'm trying to back my arguments up. You guys are not, and thats what is frustrating for me.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

GG said:
Chadwiko is the name redskin racist or not?
Click to expand...

Not according to a majority of Native Americans.

I personally think some people find it racially uncomfortable/inappropriate and for that reason it will inevitably change, as will all teams that use Native American and other Indigenous culture imagery (like the Eskimos in the CFL).

GG do you think the name is intended to be derogatory, or intended to be a symbol of pride, strength, and honour?
 
Chadwiko said:
Not according to a majority of Native Americans.

I personally think some people find it racially uncomfortable/inappropriate and for that reason it will inevitably change, as will all teams that use Native American and other Indigenous culture imagery (like the Eskimos in the CFL).

GG do you think the name is intended to be derogatory, or intended to be a symbol of pride, strength, and honour?
Click to expand...
I'm asking YOU is the term redskin racist or not? Not asking if it's offensive or not. Just whether it's a racially driven name or not? The actual breakdown of the term. Simple yes or no answer please as I have a follow up question or two pending your response.
 
I don't think it's a simple yes/no issue GG. I've already said that a big part of my frustration with the way you and nobby are trying to discuss the topic is you are over-simplifying it.

I think the below screenshot is an interesting aspect of my position



jKs7R43.png
 
GG said:
Answer the question. Is the term racially driven, derived based on the color skin of a race or not? Is the term N;gger driven and derived by race or not?
Click to expand...

Again, you're over-simplifying it to suit your own arguments.

You make it sound like Washington chose the name because they hate Native Americans and wanted to demean them, which is ridiculous.

Teams pick names that are symbols for values they want to demonstrate, like respect, strength, honour, etc.

And no, I do not consider "Redskin" to be the same as the N word.

The N word was always universally a slur. There is disagreement amongst Native Americans around the term "Redskin" historically being a slur, with many disputing that it was.
 
Firstly, I don't think it's considered oversimplifying to answer a question about Washington by discussing Washington. It is you who is throwing diversions out using teams whose names are culturally insensitive in that they monetize a culture that isn't there - but that are not racist.

Secondly, if you're going to engage with this Chadwiko could you at least be sufficiently respectful to stop twisting people's words into whatever you want them to say? I'm not here screaming that I think it's racist, cos what I think doesn't matter. Nor did GG suggest for a second that they chose the name deliberately to offend people.

What a friggen disrespectful way to engage with anyone pal - to completely rewrite what they've said to suit your own argument.

I'll repeat for a third time what I said last night, and what you agreed with - if a significant number of people think it's offensive, then it's offensive. And you have no right to tell them otherwise based on one poll. You don't have the right to tell anyone how they should think.

But if it's a poll you're going to rely on:

A recent study by the California State University, San Bernadino reports 67% of Native Americans find the Washington Redskins name and imagery racist. http://www.buzzfeed.com/lindseyadler/native-americans-offended-by-racial-slur#28ooivb

--------

Nearly four in five Americans don't think the team should change its name, the survey found. Only 11 percent think it should be changed, while 8 percent weren't sure and 2 percent didn't answer.
http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/9235381/poll-majority-approve-washington-redskins-name

--------

The MMQB took the temperature of Native Americans from coast to coast—representing 18 tribes in 10 states—and found a complicated and nuanced issue. What we did not find: the “overwhelming majority” that Snyder and NFL commissioner Roger Goodell have claimed support the name “Redskins.” http://mmqb.si.com/2014/04/03/washington-nfl-team-name-debate/

------

This is an interesting one:

63 percent of Washington, D.C. residents said that they would approve if TV broadcasters stopped using the name Redskins. http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwo...pport-changing-offensive-redskins-name-151498

--------

The poll of 796 registered Virginia voters shows 71 percent support keeping the name, while only 21 percent say it should be changed. http://www.nbc12.com/story/26575053/poll-71-of-virginians-say-redskins-should-keep-name


2 more things:

- the 2004 poll that I believe you're alluding was only 768 participants. If you know anything about research or science, you know that's a ridiculous number to try and draw inferences from in a country as big as the US. It was also widely criticised. The researchers didn't check that participants were Native Americans for a start

- you'll note that I've posted information supporting both sides, not just the one that suits my agenda. We can all find one bit of information that suits our argument and scream it ad nauseum. But the poll that actually bothered to check whether the respondents were actually Native Americans would immediately seem more reliable than the one that "Redskins" apologists continue to cite - and it found 67% opposition. (By the way, I linked buzzfeed, but that research is widely available edit: when I hit enter the embedded link worked, so that research is a click away if you want to look at it.)

So, how many people have to think it's racist before Chadwiko accepts that they're allowed to think that it's racist?
 
Here's a test for you Chadwiko

Hopefully it's not too simple for you.

Next time you see a Native American call him a chief and see what happens. Then call him a redskin and see what happens.

Get back to us when you've figured out which one is offensive.
 
Yes, the word "Redskin" is a representation of a specific race/culture. As is "Chiefs", "Vikings", "Indians", "Fighting Irish", etc.

If you want to know more about where the term originates, then read on from NPR.org

But where did the word "redskin" come from? Many dictionaries and history books say the term came about in reference to the Beothuk tribe of what is now Newfoundland, Canada. The Beothuk were said to paint their bodies with red ochre, leading white settlers to refer to them as "red men."

According to Smithsonian historian Ives Goddard, early historical records indicate that "Redskin" was used as a self-identifier by Native Americans to differentiate between the two races. Goddard found that the first use of the word "redskin" came in 1769, in negotiations between the Piankashaws and Col. John Wilkins. Throughout the 1800s, the word was frequently used by Native Americans as they negotiated with the French and later the Americans. The phrase gained widespread usage among whites when James Fenimore Cooper used it in his 1823 novel The Pioneers. In the book, Cooper has a dying Indian character lament, "There will soon be no red-skin in the country."
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top