That’s weird. Didn’t they have an episode a few years back that was all about how it’s okay to use “gay” as an insult?
1 Like
So . . . the Irish are not offended by a team called “The Fighting Irish”, therefore American Indians shouldn’t be offended by “Redskins”? Does this apply to all ethnicities and creeds in all situations: the Irish are not offended by “Fighting Irish” therefore (minority group) shouldn’t be offended by (ethnic slur)?
4 Likes
I can understand the opinion of the Native-American person in the comic strip. One can insulted by the word redskin as it effectively reduces the identity of a person to their skin color .
Now, my question is: are the Blackfoot Indians going to change their name?
Kettle, meet Pot.
According to a friend who is an NFL fan, that’s exactly why they shouldn’t change it. According to him, “true fans” invest hundreds and even thousands of dollars in swag. If they are really loyal to the team, shouldn’t they accept any name? I get they don’t want to buy new stuff, but no one is telling them they can’t keep wearing it. The whole attachment is childish and petty to me.
1 Like
We “Micks” would probably piss on your epithet. Unlike others, we don’t require approval.
Dude, the Devil already has a metric shit ton of advocates already, thanks.
(Edit: And beaten to the post by @Elusis 
)
3 Likes
I used to drive between Denver and Phoenix a couple times a year. I was always amused when driving through the Navajo reservation in north east Arizona. Proudly displayed on the high school in Red Mesa is this: Red Mesa Redskins. The student body is not quite 100% Native American.
So it’s clear that Redskins isn’t derogatory to all Native Americans. Because, if it was, the fine folks at Red Mesa High wouldn’t use that term for themselves.
I don’t care one way or the other. But I don’t see myself getting vocal about the NFL team’s name until Red Mesa changes theirs.
And the NAACP isn’t quite 100% African-American. That doesn’t mean that a mostly-white organization should refer to themselves as “negroes” “colored people” over the widespread objections of the people that word actually refers to. It’s not just the word, it’s the context.
The Redskins shouldn’t change their name because you or I find it offensive. They should change the name because huge numbers of Native Americans find it offensive.
Edit: I was thinking United Negro College Fund when I wrote NAACP, but you get the idea.
5 Likes
Let me see if I understand your position.
It’s okay for a high school in the Navajo nation to use “Redskins” as their name because they’re Native Americans themselves. I deduce, then, that if, say, Daniel Snyder was Navajo, you would have no objection to him calling his team the Redskins. And you’d be okay with a high school team calling themselves “Negroes” if they are currently and historically majority African American, just as you have no problem with the NAACP using “Colored” in their name.
Also, you seem to object to me not caring one way or the other, and feel I should care, and should be vocal because some “huge number” of others care and are vocal. Can you provide some context for that “huge number”?
Until then, I’ll remain amused (rather than angry) that there’s a huge stink about the Washington Redskins and not one word about the Red Mesa Redskins. Because I’m not as impressed with context in this case as you are. Seems to me, either “Redskins” is offensive or it isn’t. If the Navajos can use it, it would seem to me that it’s not, in fact, offensive to them. Maybe I’m looking at it wrong, perhaps “Redskin” isn’t offensive to Navajo but is offensive to Apache or Cherokee. Do you have any data on that? Or, can you point me to an inner city, majority black high school that calls themselves “Negroes”?
Words, like all symbols, have no power in and of themselves. Context is everything.
- It’s the difference between Mel Brooks making Jewish jokes versus the descendant of an SS officer making Jewish jokes.
- It’s the difference between a white police officer calling a black person the “N” word versus a young black man referring to his peers that way as a term of endearment.
- It’s the difference between a swastika carved into the facade of a 2,000 year old temple versus a swastika tattoo on a violent felon’s forehead.
5 Likes
So, to clarify, you’re okay with the Red Mesa Redskins, and are okay with an inner city high school calling themselves Negroes. And you’d be okay with the Washington Redskins if Snyder was Navajo.
If Mel Brooks jokes about the new Hymie car that not only stops on a dime but picks it up also, it’s funny. Is it funny if I make the same joke? (I’m not Jewish and I’m not descended from an SS officer. Or enlisted man, for that matter.). Is it okay for Brooks to joke about being Gypped out of something?
It’s okay for blacks to call each other n-----. For you, n----- is not offensive in and of itself, and yet you can’t even type the word when trying to tell me that the word has no power in and of itself.
Got it. I think we can just disagree on most of this.
[Mod Note: edited a word – Rob]
It doesn’t really matter if I’m OK with it, since I’m not part of either group those terms refer to.
- I’m not the one whose ancestors were the target of genocide by people who looked like the people who own this NFL team.
- I’m not the one impacted by a multi-generational legacy of institutionalized racism and poverty.
- I’m not the one whose culture and ethnic features have been reduced to a cartoonish caricature for the amusement of the ethnic majority.
It’s THOSE people whose opinions really matter in this issue, not mine. And I’m not seeing a lot of respect being directed their way by the likes of Snyder or his supporters.
1 Like
Punch up, not down.
Those that punch down are bullies.
6 Likes
You keep dodging my direct questions. Obviously, there is no single answer to all this. All your bullet points here are apply to the Red Mesa Redskins just the same as the Washington Redskins. By invoking “context”, you seem to be saying that it’s okay because Red Mesa is the Navajo calling themselves Redskins. How DO YOU reconcile Red Mesa and Washington? Tell me how they are contextually different, in your opinion?
I’m not asking some amorphous blob of general opinion. You responded to my initial remark and seemed to indicate you’re okay with it. I’m asking YOU how you’re okay with one but not the other. If YOU are against the continued use of Redskins by Daniel Snyder, why are YOU not against Red Mesa HS using it?
If you really feel your opinion doesn’t matter, why have you made so many posts about the subject?
Let me rephrase…
I don’t mean to sound like I’m picking on you, Brainspore. I started off by admitting I’m a more or less disinterested person. Based on your criteria above, the vast majority of folks speaking out on this subject are also in that category. So I’m curious how this vast group of disinterested folks parse these issues. Obviously, there will be more than one opinion on it. So I’m asking you, who responded to me initially, where you stand on it. Are you okay with Red Mesa HS using Redskins? Would you be okay with Washington using Redskins if Snyder was Navajo?
(Personally, I think if Snyder renamed his team he’d make buckets of money selling the new jerseys and hats and giant foam fingers. I mean, it’s not like people got all upset when the Dallas Texans renamed to Dallas Cowboys. Clearly, Snyder feels he has enough money. Okay, that’s not so clear.)
In my opinion there is a huge difference between Red Mesa and Washington, for reasons I and others have already enumerated.
The team in D.C is a white-owned, multi-million dollar franchise that has little or no connection to the people “Redskins” refers to. Not the owner, not the players, not the vast majority of the fans. They’re appropriating the image of a historically oppressed group against widespread objections from members of that group. They’re also using a term that has a long history as an epithet against said people. It certainly would be less problematic if Snyder was Navajo, but even so the history of the team’s name is tied to a pretty dark legacy.
The High School in Arizona is on a Navajo reservation, almost exclusively populated by the group referenced by the name. They’re not profiting off the exploitation of anyone else, much less a group that their own had a history of oppressing. Most importantly, they’re not dismissing the concerns of people who have a bigger stake in the term “Redskins” than they do.
5 Likes
And for all the same reasons you have listed, it doesn’t matter to Snyder, or to Redskins fans, or to me, that you are not OK with it.
As well it shouldn’t. But if you don’t care about offending Native Americans then you and Snyder and the Redskins fans are all kind of acting like a bunch of assholes.
2 Likes
Millions of people are offended by things other people say, all over this country, this world, every day.
Some of them are positioned to exert economic pressure on businesses that have said offensive things, and succeed in getting the offending speech reduced or eliminated. That’s fine with me. If that’s what happens to the Redskins, I won’t lose any sleep over it.
Some of them can’t, and just have to learn to live with hearing words that they feel offended by. Frankly, that’s fine with me, too. If the Native Americans who are upset over the team name have to put up with hearing it, I won’t lose any sleep over that either.
“Freedom from hearing an offensive word” is not a guaranteed right under any social system I’m familiar with.
