If you’d like to make an actual argument for keeping the “Redskins” name I’ll happily engage. I’m just not feeling the need to go too far down the rabbit hole of hypotheticals today.
4 Likes
I think it name is offensive because it refers to the murder and skinning of Native Americans, but YMMV…
3 Likes
The Golden rule fails similarly. “… as you would want to be treated” is loaded with both personal and cultural context. I don’t want to talk to the person sitting next to me on the plane so I don’t. Another person wants to talk and to be talked too.
Both rules would work better as goals to be weighed against each other; probably with other factors. Less like formal logic, more like calculus.
1 Like
I think the big difference between the Irish discussion and this discussion here is that in the US, the Irish have been fully incorporated into the ruling structures of society… the Irish were “made white” as it were, here in America. Immigrated proved to be a step up, where as native Americans were pushed off their land and systematically discriminated against right up until the present day. Plus, being a “fighter” can have positive connotations (the Irish continually fought for their freedom and independence against the British, for example), where as the term in question in the comic refers to genocidal actions against Native Amreicans…
So I think the “devil’s advocate” argument just falls flat given historical reality.
5 Likes
I’m a pragmatic - we can’t make everyone happy all the time. Of course that’s not to say we shouldn’t tend to try to make the greatest number of people possible happy (although I’m not gonna get into all the wiggly bits of Utilitarianism here), but in general, you have to accept that there will always be people who will be offended at things, and you therefor have to weigh issues with that in mind.
That said, I believe in compromise, and I would like to encourage people being selfless and doing things to please others, within reason. Ideally, the name of the team could just be changed - it’s just a sports team name, after all - it really shouldn’t matter what they’re called.
But apparently that’s not seen as an acceptable action by the people whose choice it is to make. Is that a little stubborn and insensitive? Yeah, it is. But it’s their call. I may not like it, other people may not like it, but it is entirely within their rights to disregard our opinions and carry on with their team named however they please.
Legally, we have little to no ground for recourse. If the name is going to change, it’s going to be because of a conscious choice on the part of the owners - because they have a change of heart for some reason.
Maybe that will come about through communication and discourse, and the triumph of logic, kindness, and human empathy. Or maybe it will come about through financial concerns, with people refusing to support the team because of the name, until it becomes too unprofitable to keep around any longer. Or maybe a change of heart will never come, and they’ll keep the name unchanged until the team ceases to exist entirely.
For my own point of view, while I fully think the name should be changed, I don’t think any amount of complaining is going to produce the change of heart necessary for the name to end up being changed. But clearly some people do think that, and are prepared to go on complaining about it.
I wish them luck, even if I doubt they’ll succeed in their current course of action. Maybe they’ll surprise me.
Huh. One and Five. I’m sure all of those were honorable losses.
1 Like
This one’s easy. Leave the name the same to satisfy the people who want to keep the name.
Change the mascot to a red potato so it satisfies the people who want it to not be racist anymore.
Everyone wins. Well, kinda.
9 Likes
What??
1 Like
The difference is that the Irish actively embraced assimilation, whereas First Nations / Native Americans actively resisted it - and yes, that has a lot to do with willful immigration versus forced relocation. It’s easy to become “fully incorporated into the ruling structures of society” when you’re actively working to fit into the society in question.
There is also a far less prevalent racial and cultural component for the Irish - they were already European, and while they were looked down by many parties as an unsuccessful people and nation, they were still White and Catholic. It was a lot easier for them to integrate, and they surrender a lot less of their identity in doing so - although they certainly still left quite a lot behind in the process.
But speaking as devil’s advocate, that all boils down to a matter of scope and scale. The Irish may have had an easier time of things in straight comparison, but they still suffered genocide, they still had to leave their ancestral homeland, they still lost their language, they still embraced a foreign culture. First Nations / Native American could have done the same - could have become “fully incorporated into the ruling structures of society”.
The potential for positive connotations isn’t the point, because the same could be said (by the devil still, mind) about the other term.
What matters is the potential for negative connotations - and there are plenty of possible negative connotations about “Fighting Irish” that someone could take offense to.
Anyway, these aren’t meant to iron-clad arguments - they’re merely inversions of the “obligatory weak counter-arguments” set up as strawmen by Brainspore. I’m not trying to convince anyone of these arguments (devil’s advocate and all), I’m simply trying to illustrate how both sides of the issue are equally susceptible to “weak arguments”, and that neither side can claim logical superiority here.
It all eventually boils down to this - some people dislike the name and want it changed, but the people in charge of changing the name don’t want to change it. Nothing else ends up being important.
And in that simple context, there really isn’t a right answer. One side or the other has to not get their way, either willingly or not. Neither side wants to corpromise. Neither side wants to settle for anything less than 100% of their own desires. Something has to change before this ever gets resolved. Someone has to be willing to compromise.
Just addressing your devil’s advocate character here, but…
I think your third argument is invalidated by the fact that “Fightin’ Irish” is derived from the name of a Civil War era military unit, the Irish Brigade. It’s not a slur in the slightest, just a historical reference to actual Irish fighting men. One of Notre Dame’s presidents, an Irish-American named William Corby, fought in the Irish Brigade and that’s probably the source of the name… which would mean it came from Irish people themselves and is a whole different ballgame (sorry) than white people using an epithet for indigenous Americans.
This is fun. I’d be happy to keep going. 
3 Likes
My Ex GF was a 'skins fan and I took her to a couple of games… They seem like an honestly decent bunch of fans (as much as NFL fans can be).
What I don’t get is why the NFL and Snyder don’t jump on the chance to change the name. Other teams have done it (generally when moving, but still). I would think they would see the massive opportunity for merch sales… considering that all the rabid fans would buy new swag as most of them have huge stashes of 'skins stuff that they drag out on game day which would need updating/replacing.
My ex had like 8 jerseys, she would outfit our entire game day group at the stadium… plus tons of other official gear we would bring to tailgate.
3 Likes
To be fair, not everyone agrees with that, but the people in question, who are refered to by that term, tend to agree with that assessment. Here is an overview of the evolution of the term, which disagrees with that assesment:
And here is an article that argues for the term being offensive:
But in gneeral, it seems many Native Americans find it offensive… and there was clearly a genocidal policy, or at the kindest, a policy of ethnic cleansing aimed at the Native peoples in the Americas (and Australia), and as such, I don’t see why we can’t be more sensitive on these issues.
(edited to ass)Here is what the wikipedia entry on the term is, FYI:
2 Likes
Right, but they just don’t have the same connotations in the American historical context… there wasn’t a set of genocidal policies aimed at the Irish by the American government.
Noted! 
1 Like
I dunno… Not sure I’d want to find out. It was a terrorist act intended to terrify others and drive Native Americans out of particular territories.
You are referring to scalping, or the term “red skins” ? Either way, some context/citations?
Both? Because the term redskin is clearly meant to continue white supremacy, at least rhetorically…
And as noted in the comment on that blog, Native Americans were victimized by scalping in larger numbers…
Edited to add: You can see my links above for some context on the controversy over the term. As for scalping as terrorism by a colonial power against an indigenous people, well, I thought at this point that was a well-known and accepted historical aspect of American expansion? Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee and all that. Just a surface survey of the topic reveals how it was indeed a colonial conquest with very violent overtones. Taking Native children from their families so they can be raised “civilized”, constant breaking of treaties and incessant land appropriate (Trail of Tears, being just one example).
Hi Glitch,
You say:
But then you say:
And I believe that is logically inconsistent. You agree that the name could be changed by financial necessity, you go on to say that you agree that it should be changed, but then close with saying you don’t think complaining will help.
I believe the proponents of the name-change (and most others) would say that by complaining and making it an issue is the only way to make it financially necessary to change. If you want it to change, you should welcome the “complaining”, right? (when you say “complaining”, you mean activism and consensus building, right?)
2 Likes
Alrighty, in that vein, I don’t think anyone can directly point to the origins of “Redskin” as a sports team name and honestly connect it to hatred. Caricature, sure. Employment of a term that had historically been used derisively and which was originally born out of racial tension and hostility, absolutely. But the history of the team name itself didn’t originate in hatred.
The team started out as the Boston Braves, in 1932, operating in concert with the baseball team of the same name and sharing their home field. A year later, they changed locations and began sharing Fenway Park with the Boston Red Sox - so to evoke a connection between the two teams (and to help them keep their signature red uniforms), they changed their name to the Boston Redskins. They relocated to Washington in 1937, and became the Washington Redskins.
Nothing in this context suggests any particularly strong or noteworthy racism - any more than you see in names like the Boston Braves, or the Cleveland Indians. The adoption of the term “redskin” had far more to do with the theme of the color red, both in the team’s uniform and in terms of their association with the Red Sox than it ever did with racial discrimination.
Which isn’t to say it isn’t still casually racist - it clearly is, just as much as Boston Braves or Cleveland Indians is. It is certainly the reduction of native cultures into caricature for the sake of mascot. It is undeniably cultural appropriation. But it isn’t a targetted, purposeful, hate-driven naming. They didn’t pick “Redskins” because it had historically served as a slur, they picked it for reasons of aesthetics and inter-team association.
