Costas: Redskins 'an insult, a slur'

[petegz28]

http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/b...edskins-101313

[Aries Walker]

For those saying that it was fine 80 years ago, so why not now, here's an article from Charles Krauthammer who explains it better than I can. The gist of it is that words and usage change over time.

In the matter of the (Washington) Redskins.

I don't like being lectured by sportscasters about ethnic sensitivity. Or advised by the president of the United States about changing team names. Or blackmailed by tribal leaders playing the race card.

I don't like the language police ensuring that no one anywhere gives offense to anyone about anything. And I fully credit the claim of Redskins owner Dan Snyder and many passionate fans that they intend no malice or prejudice and that “Redskins” has a proud 80-year history they wish to maintain.

The fact is, however, that words don't stand still. They evolve.

Fifty years ago, the preferred, most respectful term for African-Americans was Negro. The word appears 15 times in Martin Luther King Jr.'s “I have a dream” speech. Negro replaced a long list of insulting words in common use during decades of public and legal discrimination.

And then, for complicated historical reasons (having to do with the black power and “black is beautiful” movements), usage changed. The preferred term is now black or African-American. With a rare few legacy exceptions, Negro carries an unmistakably patronizing and demeaning tone.

If you were detailing the ethnic composition of Congress, you wouldn't say: “Well, to start with, there are 44 Negroes.” If you'd been asleep for 50 years, you might. But upon being informed how the word had changed in nuance, you would stop using it and choose another.

And here's the key point: You would stop not because of the language police. Not because you might incur a Bob Costas harangue. Not because the president would wag a finger. But simply because the word was tainted, freighted with negative connotations with which you would not want to be associated.

Proof? You wouldn't even use the word in private, where being harassed for political incorrectness is not an issue.

Similarly, regarding the further ethnic breakdown of Congress, you wouldn't say: “And by my count, there are two redskins.” It's inconceivable, because no matter how the word was used 80 years ago, it carries invidious connotations today.

I know there are surveys that say that most American Indians aren't bothered by the word. But that's not the point. My objection is not rooted in pressure from various minorities or fear of public polls or public scolds.

Growing up, I thought “gyp” was simply a synonym for “cheat,” and used it accordingly. It was only when I was an adult that I learned that gyp was short for Gypsy. At which point, I stopped using it.

Not because I took a poll of Roma to find out if they were offended. If some mysterious disease had carried away every Gypsy on the planet and there were none left to offend, I still wouldn't use it.

Why? Simple decency. I wouldn't want to use a word that defines a people — living or dead, offended or not — in a most demeaning way. It's not a question of who or how many had their feelings hurt but whether you want to associate yourself with a word that, for whatever historical reason having nothing to do with you, carries inherently derogatory connotations.

Years ago, the word “reeruned” emerged as the enlightened substitute for such cruel terms as “feeble-minded” or “mongoloid.” Today, however, it is considered a form of denigration, having been replaced by the clumsy but now conventional “developmentally disabled.”

There is no particular logic to this evolution. But it's a social fact. Unless you're looking to give gratuitous offense, you don't call someone “reeruned.”

Let's recognize that there are many people of good will for whom “Washington Redskins” contains sentimental and historical attachment — and not an ounce of intended animus. So let's turn down the temperature. What's at issue is not high principle but adaptation to a change in linguistic nuance. A close call, though I personally would err on the side of not using the word if others are available.

How about Skins, a contraction already applied to the Washington football team? And that carries a sports connotation, as in skins vs. shirts in pickup basketball.

Choose whatever name you like. But let's go easy on the other side. We're not talking Brown vs. Board of Education here. There's no demand that American Indians man the team's offensive line. This is a matter of usage — and usage changes. If you shot a remake of 1934's “The Gay Divorcee,” you'd have to change that title, too.

Not because the lady changed but because the word did.

Hail Skins.

http://www.mysanantonio.com/opinion/...rd-4907781.php

[TEX]

Originally Posted by Xanathol

Did you even read the polls? Do realize there is no mention of time frame or whereabouts of those surveyed in your 'recent' poll, right? They claim 400 were polled, yet the earlier poll took about a year to poll 768. Read the notes and acknowledgments - if you cannot see how obvious it is that the recent poll set out to prove a conclusion while the prior poll was an open minded poll, then you need IQ glasses.

People with an agenda only search for information that supports their side of an issue. Then they use that info to "validate" their stance. Many times, as is the case here, ignoring little things like facts...

[GloryDayz]

Originally Posted by Reerun_KC

White supremacy still alive and well. White power!!!!

They seem to be the least powerful people in this county these days...

[GloryDayz]

Originally Posted by loochy

They guys in this picture are living, breathing racial slurs.

Rep

[GloryDayz]

Originally Posted by Aries Walker

For those saying that it was fine 80 years ago, so why not now, here's an article from Charles Krauthammer who explains it better than I can. The gist of it is that words and usage change over time.



http://www.mysanantonio.com/opinion/...rd-4907781.php

So, you evolve into being offended..... OK, good to know.....

Let's hope they make haste with the name change (so Indian Nation can find something else that offends them)...

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by Aries Walker

I invite you to attend your local powwow and give a speech in which you use the term 'redskin', in the context of your choice, and count how many in the audience are demeaned, disrespected, or disgraced.

Thanks for the invite, but it's really not necessary. We already see that it's acceptable to some American Indians in this context. See post 752. Are Robert Green and 98% of his tribe too stupid to know they should be offended?

[Jimmya]

Keep the name.... The heck with the liberals in DC!

[RealSNR]

Originally Posted by patteeu

Thanks for the invite, but it's really not necessary. We already see that it's acceptable to some American Indians in this context. See post 752. Are Robert Green and 98% of his tribe too stupid to know they should be offended?

The name has racial connotations, does it not?

Some Native Americans aren't offended. But some are. That's why it's ****ing stupid that in 2014 we still have something as ****ing stupid as "Redskins" as a national sports team in a multi-billion dollar industry like the NFL.

Here's where you pull out your erroneous "Eh, some people think they have a right to not be offended" argument.

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by SNR

The name has racial connotations, does it not?

Some Native Americans aren't offended. But some are. That's why it's ****ing stupid that in 2014 we still have something as ****ing stupid as "Redskins" as a national sports team in a multi-billion dollar industry like the NFL.

Here's where you pull out your erroneous "Eh, some people think they have a right to not be offended" argument.

Why are they offended? You still haven't explained it. Your explanation for how this demeans anyone is essentially, "it just does".

[-King-]

It's funny how some people think they can tell others what they should or should not be offended by.

[tk13]

Originally Posted by -King-

It's funny how some people think they can tell others what they should or should not be offended by.

What's strange is I'm not sure that even matters. Does it matter if anyone is offended by it? So you have thick skin and words don't bother you. I think that's great... but does that make a difference whether the word is a slur or not? I don't know. It's possible for something to be inappropriate even if someone isn't offended by it.

[RealSNR]

Originally Posted by tk13

What's strange is I'm not sure that even matters. Does it matter if anyone is offended by it? So you have thick skin and words don't bother you. I think that's great... but does that make a difference whether the word is a slur or not? I don't know. It's possible for something to be inappropriate even if someone isn't offended by it.

This

[RealSNR]

Originally Posted by patteeu

Why are they offended? You still haven't explained it. Your explanation for how this demeans anyone is essentially, "it just does".

Native Americans in many ways have been just as mistreated historically as black people in this country. And in some ways, they have been mistreated worse. Agree or disagree with that statement? Actually, don't respond to that, because I know you'll be obtuse just to close down the discussion.

If you either answered honestly or looked up the facts to support this, then take that bullshit they've had to go through and then tell me they shouldn't be offended by the term "Redskins." By fighting for and defending this nickname you have no allegiance to just because of tradition, it's just one more shitty thing to add to this appalling history.

Changing the mascot isn't going to improve living conditions or give Indians back their sovereignty, but it sure would at least put thoughts in people's brains that this shit exists.

And no, I'm not going to ****ing explain to you why "Redskins" isn't a slur.

Red. Skins. Figure it out, patteeu. You're smart. Don't be a ****ing idiot.

[bevischief]

I have native American background on both sides. And I don't care and have a brother from another mother. We don't care.

[bevischief]

Originally Posted by bevischief

I have native American background on both sides. And I don't care and have a brother from another mother. We don't care.

He is also a decon.