Seattle Times banning the word "Redskins"

[HawkDawg]

Wow, this thing is really taking off.
http://blogs.seattletimes.com/take2/2014/06/18/why-were-banning-the-redskins-nickname-in-the-seattle-times/

I'm on the fence with it. Growing up in Seattle (born in '75), there were certain racial terms that I would never use in public. It was a known. Even though my Grandfather would, I was taught to never go down that road. "Redskins" wasn't even on the radar, it was only used when talking about football. Never even thought about it as being derogatory or a racial slur towards an Native American.

The obvious irony is that D.C., of all places, chose this name for the team. Not trying to start a firefight here, just want to know what you all think.

[FolkCrusader]

Personally I think this is one of the best ways a press organization that disagrees with the use of the name can act. No one wants to hear them go on and on about how they disagree with it. By ceasing to use it you make a strong point, but it isn't the point. Articles about the NFL team from Washington DC will still read as they should. They are not writing less about them. They are just excluding a name they think should not be used.

As far as my own feelings on the subject I can see both sides. Personally I think the name is clearly a racial slur, but I also understand that many people do not see it that way. When people ask me I like to put it this way. Suppose the name was mine to change. I have ten people in my family that I loved equally. Seven of them said the name is fine, leave it. Two say it is offensive and must be changed. One doesn't care. For the love of my two family members I would change the name. Why would I insist on insulting two people I love for the sake of a silly name?

[Seahawks4Ever]

So, change the name to the "Washington Whities" lol . This thread is Deja Vu all over again because we discussed it for quite awhile on the old P-I Forum.

[Eaglehawk]

Wow, this thing is really taking off.
http://blogs.seattletimes.com/take2/2014/06/18/why-were-banning-the-redskins-nickname-in-the-seattle-times/

I'm on the fence with it. Growing up in Seattle (born in '75), there were certain racial terms that I would never use in public. It was a known. Even though my Grandfather would, I was taught to never go down that road. "Redskins" wasn't even on the radar, it was only used when talking about football. Never even thought about it as being derogatory or a racial slur towards an Native American.

The obvious irony is that D.C., of all places, chose this name for the team. Not trying to start a firefight here, just want to know what you all think.

As I responded to this thread I thought, when was the last time I ever heard a derrogatory term for a Native American? It wasn't in person it was on the movies, where my only recollection of the term "Redskin" is.
So, its not a derrogatory term for me. I would not use it mind you, other than the team, cause I think the term is disrespectful. But other than that, this effort to force the Redskins to change the name is simply an abomination!

[Seahawks4Ever]

OBS; I am sure that you remember when their helmet logo was a spear (akin to the Fla. Seminole's spear) until they changed it to their current one. The Indian head logo is cool and dignified, it reminds me of the Indian Head nickel, it is a shame that the Trade Mark has attacked the logo instead of focusing on the Name "Redskins".

Mr. Snyder, when he bought his team bought a "brand" and very lucrative brand. It is right up their with the Dallas Cowboys, G.B. Packers, S.F. 49ners., and N.Y. Giants etc... Those teams are also ones that have appeared in and won most of the Super Bowls an their rivalries are legendary. Jerry Jones, owner of the Cowboys refused to have his team moved out of the Eastern Conference because of those rivalries between the N.F.C. East teams because it would have cost him a great deal of money not be playing Washington, Philly, and the Giants two times a year. For years the Cardinals were in that Eastern Conference but when they moved to Arizona it proved even more ridiculous not to move them in to the West. Same for K.C., they had been in the AFL West and simply were plunked down in the AFC West when the two leagues merged, still, it worked out that all of those teams that started out together stayed together to build upon their rivalries.

It is ironic that the Cleveland Indians while they have been under attack from the same First Nations groups bought some time by simply retiring Chief Wahoo. The Atlanta Braves the former Millwauki and before that Boston Braves along with the K.C. Chiefs while having been criticized for their monikers have only been attacked for their fans use of the "tomahawk chop".

I have to believe that if the N.F.L. and Dan Snyder would have been proactive and got out ahead of the controversy concerning the Washington name that maybe they could have worked out a compromise with the First Nations group to come up with a name that did honor the Washington area Native Americans and still keep the inoffensive logo. Goodell and Snyder could still work together to come up with a better name but if they want to keep the logo they are going to have to go to court to get their trademark protection back and I think that they would win. Sure, they might lose in the lower courts but at the SCOTUS they would probably win.

How easy would it have been for Snyder and Goodell to have renamed the team the Washington Warriors and still kept their very cool logo??? They should have been proactive, now it has become an issue of pride for both sides and it will be the lawyers on both sides who are going to cash in.

[FolkCrusader]

Highly unlikely the Supreme Court would take up the case. The power of the trademark office is pretty clear.

That said, fighting the name change in court is only going to polarize opposition to the name. It's odd, Mr Snyder is supposed to be some sort of genius business man yet every step he has taken in this situation has been exactly the wrong step. I have yet to see a situation where a business defies a portion of their customer base and it turns out well. Classes in PR craft will use this case for decades on how not to handle a similar case.

[burrrton]

Classes in PR craft will use this case for decades on how not to handle a similar case.

Huh? Whatever your feelings about the derogatory nature of the word, the # of people who want it left alone far outnumber those who want it changed.

PPP poll this year: 4:1 in favor of no change.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nf ... g/4297665/

AP poll last year (I think): 4:1 in favor of no change.
http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/92353 ... skins-name

Etc.

Even among Native Americans the name has never been found to be offensive by any but a small percentage:

"In a study performed in 2004 by the National Annenberg Election Survey, Native Americans from the 48 continental U.S. states were asked "The professional football team in Washington calls itself the Washington Redskins. As a Native American, do you find that name offensive or doesn't it bother you?" In response, ninety percent replied that the name did not bother them, while nine percent said that it was offensive, and one percent would not answer."

NOTE: I'm not advocating one way or the other. Just saying Snyder's behavior isn't some PR disaster. He's getting a lot of sh*t for standing his ground, but the uproar if he caved would arguably be much, much worse.

[kalibane]

I doubt that Burrton. St. Johns changed their name from the Red Men to the Red Storm for the same reason and people barely noticed. I'm sure that people will feel it's unnecessary maybe be some muttering about political correctness but there will be no uproar.

[burrrton]

I'm sure that people will feel it's unnecessary maybe be some muttering about political correctness but there will be no uproar.

Fair- I have no idea how much of an "uproar" it would be and I probably overstated it, but my point is there's simply no indication it would be *less* of one than if the name was left alone.

IOW, it's not at all obvious that the bigger PR hit is coming from standing pat when polling shows overwhelming majorities support his position.

And I'll note again to head off the inevitable attacks: I'm *NOT* supporting the guy. I couldn't give two squirts of p1ss if he changes the name or not.

St. Johns changed their name from the Red Men to the Red Storm for the same reason and people barely noticed.

They'd have barely noticed if they'd left it alone, too.

[kalibane]

From a bottom line standpoint I think you're probably correct. From a PR standpoint I think you're wrong. No one is going to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to air a commercial during the NBA finals to bring the Redskins moniker back if he changed it. There are stories written about the subject every week and it's all negative PR for Daniel Snyder.

If he would have changed the name this wouldn't have been a negatively spun story for the past few years like it has been. He actually probably would have been applauded for being progressive. He already has the image within sports fans circles as a meddling owner that can't get out of the way of his own ego to allow his franchise to be successful. So he's already starting from a PR deficit.

I'm not saying someone should just cave to all demands once racism is leveled but it would have probably been wiser to position yourself as open to changing the name, announced some kind of fact finding operation and then fallen back on polls like the ones you cited as evidence that the change was unnecessary. But by instead just stubbornly refusing it was an issue it makes it really easy to paint him as the rich entitled white man who lacks racial awareness, which right or wrong is how a lot of people see him who probably didn't even know his name before this.

I don't know that there will be classes taught around this issue but he definitely didn't do the best he could from a PR standpoint and if he had just caved he would have no where near the negative publicity surrounding him or his franchise right now.

[kalibane]

No they would have noticed the St. Johns change Burrton. It was the same type of pressure from people alleging that the name was offensive it just never reached the levels it has with the Redskins because they simply decided to change it you know 20 years ago instead of letting the situation simmer hoping it would go away.

There were a bunch of universities that changed the names of their mascots all because they were receiving this pressure. And they still would have been getting pressure today because as evidenced by the Redskins, it's not just going to go away.

[burrrton]

So he's already starting from a PR deficit.

Again, Kal, I'm not arguing there isn't bad PR out there.

The fact remains, however, that he's taking the popular position (by far) in standing pat.

I guess I see your point about one side being more aggressive about their feelings- we agree his supporters probably wouldn't take out ads if the name was changed- but that still doesn't make this some kind of disaster.

I'm not saying someone should just cave to all demands once racism is leveled but it would have probably been wiser to position yourself as open to changing the name, announced some kind of fact finding operation and then fallen back on polls like the ones you cited as evidence that the change was unnecessary. But by instead just stubbornly refusing it was an issue it makes it really easy to paint him as the rich entitled white man who lacks racial awareness, which right or wrong is how a lot of people see him who probably didn't even know his name before this.

Agreed. He probably shouldn't have opened himself up to some of the ridiculous demagoguery.

[kalibane]

Yeah he probably won't end up suffering too much over his stance ultimately. As someone who lived in DC for a while. I know that the people in Washington certainly aren't going to abandon the Redskins. That is a Redskins town through and through and they are never going to stop being a Redskins town.

I do think eventually the name will change. It just seems like the momentum is inevitable (even if it's just a case of the squeaky wheel getting the oil). Sooner or later I think a sponsor is going to pull out because of the noise and then at the point Goodell just pulls him aside and says, "look it's just not worth this".

[Hawktawk]

Just watched John Riggins segment of a football life. The diesel was one of my all time favorites on one of my historically favorite franchises.Hell I made it about 45 years through life not even knowing it was a racial slur that offended anyone.And it made my blood boil thinking about this paltry pittance of a minority of a minority whining nonstop about it like it really affects their lives. And I guess its cool to use a major sports final to push their angle in a commercial but If you are say pro second amendment not a chance of getting air time.And what hacks me off the worst are these grandstanding politicians tripping over each other to get their 02 cents worth in. Its just more left wing gerrymandering to try to destroy this once great nation. Maybe these activists ought to go spend some time on a reservation dealing with the real world problems of the Native American community such as Alcoholism, Drug Dependency etc. Oh I know they are like that because we treat them bad by calling a team Redskins.

F the PC police.

[kalibane]

You may want to revisit the definition of the word gerrymandering... I don't think it means what you think it means.

[Eaglehawk]

Just watched John Riggins segment of a football life. The diesel was one of my all time favorites on one of my historically favorite franchises.Hell I made it about 45 years through life not even knowing it was a racial slur that offended anyone.And it made my blood boil thinking about this paltry pittance of a minority of a minority whining nonstop about it like it really affects their lives. And I guess its cool to use a major sports final to push their angle in a commercial but If you are say pro second amendment not a chance of getting air time.And what hacks me off the worst are these grandstanding politicians tripping over each other to get their 02 cents worth in. Its just more left wing gerrymandering to try to destroy this once great nation. Maybe these activists ought to go spend some time on a reservation dealing with the real world problems of the Native American community such as Alcoholism, Drug Dependency etc. Oh I know they are like that because we treat them bad by calling a team Redskins.

F the PC police.

AMEN HAWK TAWK!!!!!
BEST RANT OF THE YEAR!!!!!
From the time I grew up till today, I have never heard anyone use that term to put down Native Americans. In fact, as I said before, the only time I heard that word was in the movies and of course in reference to the Redskins.
Can't believe this.

And its not ONLY the left, its the right as well pushing for this nonsense. Especially RINO's.
You know what I am talking about Hawktawk. Our country has been ruined by BOTH PARTIES not just one.

[Hawktawk]

You may want to revisit the definition of the word gerrymandering... I don't think it means what you think it means.

Well why don't you educate me on what you think it means? I thought it meant jury rigging and bullying your way to a goal.

[HawkDawg]

Personally, I find the term "Cowboys" to be demeaning.

As do I with "Fighting Irish"!

[RiverDog]

My position on this subject hasn't changed much in over 40 years since the trend to make sporting nicknames more politically correct began back in the 70's, and that is if a credible survey can be done that's truly representative of the entire class/race of 'offened' people and a clear majority wants the nickname changed, than I would support changing it. But what often times happens, and I think this case of the Redskins nickname is one of those occasions, is that a vocal, non elected minority of self appointed leaders of a movement end up determining for all citizens, what is an insult and what is not.

Just watched John Riggins segment of a football life. The diesel was one of my all time favorites on one of my historically favorite franchises.Hell I made it about 45 years through life not even knowing it was a racial slur that offended anyone.And it made my blood boil thinking about this paltry pittance of a minority of a minority whining nonstop about it like it really affects their lives. And I guess its cool to use a major sports final to push their angle in a commercial but If you are say pro second amendment not a chance of getting air time.And what hacks me off the worst are these grandstanding politicians tripping over each other to get their 02 cents worth in. Its just more left wing gerrymandering to try to destroy this once great nation. Maybe these activists ought to go spend some time on a reservation dealing with the real world problems of the Native American community such as Alcoholism, Drug Dependency etc. Oh I know they are like that because we treat them bad by calling a team Redskins.
.

I agree with that. It's been awhile since I've seen up to date stats on the subject, but I've seen where the alcoholism rate of NA males that live on an indian reservation was many times more than in the rest of society.

[Eaglehawk]

Alluding to most of the posters points, I agree.

Who are these people telling us what is PC and what is NOT PC. Especially when NA's themselves do not appear to be concerned.
At least not the ones that I have spoken to through the years. You would have thought that if this was so bad, at the time the name was adopted the NA's would have jumped on this. They did not. In fact they likely approved it at the time.


TRULY RIDICULOUS.

By the way, let's change the name of that other team that uses the NA moniker, the CHIEFS.
Its racially offensive! This is truly nonsense.

[NorthHawk]

Chief means the head of a group - like Chief Executive Officer - it's not in any way derogatory.

If you don't think the Term Redskins is offensive, I challenge you to walk into a group of young Native Americans and call them Redskins.
I'd be surprised if you left without your tonsils wearing your mustache.

Snyder has put a stake in the ground on this and he can't backtrack without losing face.
There is now some pressure on some of the sponsors of the team so it remains to be seen if money will sway his opinion.
If they go after the sponsors of the NFL as a business, it might create some extra pressure.

[burrrton]

If you don't think the Term Redskins is offensive, I challenge you to walk into a group of young Native Americans and call them Redskins.
I'd be surprised if you left without your tonsils wearing your mustache.

Er, the term is used around Native Americans all day every day and twice on (NFL) Sundays, so cut the BS.

Whether or not the name is a slur at all is the very heart of this debate- I don't think you should be presenting your conclusion as a given.

Serious question that I honestly haven't heard a good answer for: why do such overwhelming percentages of both Native Americans and (admittedly less importantly) the general population support the name if, as you indicate, simply saying the word around NAs is supposed to get you violently assaulted?

To be fair, I've only heard of one poll of just Native Americans on the subject, and I know there are criticisms of that poll saying it's believed that some people overstated their NA blood and/or otherwise misrepresented themselves, but even if that is granted, I don't think it can account for the huge majorities supporting the name.

[NorthHawk]

If you don't think the Term Redskins is offensive, I challenge you to walk into a group of young Native Americans and call them Redskins.
I'd be surprised if you left without your tonsils wearing your mustache.

Er, the term is used around Native Americans all day every day and twice on (NFL) Sundays, so cut the BS.

Whether or not the name is a slur at all is the very heart of this debate- I don't think you should be presenting your conclusion as a given.

Serious question that I honestly haven't heard a good answer for: why do such overwhelming percentages of both Native Americans and (admittedly less importantly) the general population support the name if, as you indicate, simply saying the word around NAs is supposed to get you violently assaulted?

To be fair, I've only heard of one poll of just Native Americans on the subject, and I know there are criticisms of that poll saying it's believed that some people overstated their NA blood and/or otherwise misrepresented themselves, but even if that is granted, I don't think it can account for the huge majorities supporting the name.

So you wouldn't feel at all hesitant to call a Native American a Redskin to his face?
None at all?

If you have any hesitancy or doubt at all, then you know that it's a term that shouldn't be used.

[c_hawkbob]

It's offensive period. Arguing about the degree of offensiveness or the percentage of Native Americans that find it so is semantics.

[burrrton]

It's offensive period. Arguing about the degree of offensiveness or the percentage of Native Americans that find it so is semantics.

The "degree of offensiveness" is the whole point of the discussion, not simply semantics. You and others say it's offensive, most say it's not (I have no personal opinion one way or the other).

So you wouldn't feel at all hesitant to call a Native American a Redskin to his face?
None at all?

Of course I would- I don't refer to people as "Indian", "Redskin", "Chief", or any other label. I'd call them by name (or whatever else they said they preferred).

The problem is that people use the term all the time around Native Americans with nobody's tonsils ending up in their mustache or whatever, and worse (for your point), apparently huge majorities support the name.

And I'll ask again: Why is that?

[c_hawkbob]

I do not accept the "most say it's not" argument. Either in the questionable truth of the statement itself or in it's bearing on the matter. 50 years ago most here in the south would have said the same of the n-word, even now I hear it used enough that it was shocking to me when I first moved here from out west.

If nobody cared it wouldn't be such an issue.

[burrrton]

I do not accept the "most say it's not" argument.

I don't know what to tell you then, Bob- there have been a number of polls taken on the subject and not one of them (that I've found) come close to even making it appear questionable- people just don't agree with you.

50 years ago most here in the south would have said the same of the n-word, even now I hear it used enough that it was shocking to me when I first moved here from out west.

Nonsense. Even 50 years ago, they could never have taken a poll that found 4:1 support for "The Washington Ni**ers", even among David Duke and his immediate family.

The N-bomb's status as a slur has never, ever been in question, and nobody needed a poll to know that.

If nobody cared it wouldn't be such an issue.

Well, I don't doubt some people care. The question, though, is whether they *should* care, whether it's an *actual* slur or a few overly-sensitive people finding something to be upset about, and in light of the polling and our 'politically correct' atmosphere, it's looking more and more like the latter.

[kalibane]

Well why don't you educate me on what you think it means? I thought it meant jury rigging and bullying your way to a goal.

It's the practice of redrawing voting districts to purposely disenfranchise a particular voting block.

[c_hawkbob]

I disagree with every single point you tried to make in your last post Burr but i'm not going to play your back and forth say the same thing a thousand times game.

[kalibane]

I don't think there is any doubt that it's an actual slur.

"In time, however, through a process that in linguistics is called pejoration, by which a neutral term acquires an unfavorable connotation or denotation, redskin lost its neutral, accurate descriptive sense and became a term of disparagement. Red man is first recorded in the early 17th century and was originally neutral in tone. Red Indian is first recorded in the early 19th century and was used by the British, far more than by Americans, to distinguish the Indians of the subcontinent from the Indians of the Americas. All three terms are dated or offensive." - Oxford English Dictionary

"usually offensive
: american indian " - Mirriam Webster

" Slang: Often Disparaging and Offensive.
a North American Indian. " - Dictionary.com

"Offensive Slang
Used as a disparaging term for a Native American." - The Free Dictionary

While the term seems to have originated as a simple descriptor of a particular tribe that literrally painted their faces red, it in fact became a slur with which to refer to all native americans, "in the late 1800s and early 1900s, as the word went from being an identifying term to a derogatory slur. " It still carried that pejorative subtext when they named the Redskins franchise, it was just societally acceptable but then you know so was dressing in black face, and having "sambo" depictions in popular media for all ages. So take that societal acceptance with however large a grain of salt you want.

The argument seems to be that no one cares anymore, I guess in the same way that by and large people of anglo descent people don't seem bothered by the term "honkey". But the fact remains that it is a slur.

[burrrton]

I disagree with every single point you tried to make in your last post Burr but i'm not going to play your back and forth say the same thing a thousand times game.

So you disagree with poll results and you think Americans in 1964 thought "ni**er" was a positive way to refer to AAs?

That's really the only two points I made:

1. Multiple polls show support for the name.
2. Nobody would have supported a team called the Washington Ni**ers even if we go back to the mid '60s.

And I don't think either are particularly controversial.

And I'll say again: I don't really care if he changes the name and in fact I agree it's probably inevitable- a vocal minority can be very costly. I just think it's useful to remember actual attitudes about the name and not beg the question assuming that which you're trying to prove.

[burrrton]

But the fact remains that it is a slur.

Ok, fine.

So I'll repeat my question (and I'm not asking this rhetorically- I'm honestly curious what the explanation is): why do people, even Native Americans, support the name so overwhelmingly if Oxford tells them they should be offended?

I'll quit going off in the weeds because this is basically where my indifference comes from. It looks to me like we're all standing around gazing at our navels while NAs, who are supposed to be the aggrieved group, are going "meh". Why?

[c_hawkbob]

Exactly Kal; Honkey" or "Cracker" don't bother me a bit because they effect me, not someone else.

I'm a bit more sensitive to racial slurs to other races because I have relatives that are a lot more Indian than I (some still on the res) and grand kids, nieces, nephews and in-laws that are black, Polynesian and Latino and I know how they respond to it. To many it doesn't matter but to many, especially the young ones, it matters.

[c_hawkbob]

Ok, fine.

So I'll repeat my question (and I'm not asking this rhetorically- I'm honestly curious what the explanation is): why do people, even Native Americans, support the name so overwhelmingly if Oxford tells them they should be offended?

I'll quit going off in the weeds because this is basically where my indifference comes from. It looks to me like we're all standing around gazing at our navels while NAs, who are supposed to be the aggrieved group, are going "meh". Why?

Indifference perhaps, at least among those that bothered to vote in whatever poll you're hinging your argument on, but I don't believe any Native American "overwhelming support" for a second.

[burrrton]

I don't believe any Native American "overwhelming support" for a second.

That's what polling shows, Bob, whether you believe it or not.

I don't think there have been an overwhelming *number of polls* done, but there have been a few and every one of them has shown the same thing.

To many it doesn't matter but to many, especially the young ones, it matters.

You know, that's something I hadn't considered and I have to admit that's a powerful argument. It answers my question, too- polling would capture adults' opinions, and adults may feel much differently than the younger gen.

[kalibane]

You asked Bob but I'll answer. I don't think the polls are "incorrect", but I think polls like this (at least the two you offered) are problematic on these kinds of issues for two reasons.

1. The people being polled are largely the "oppressors" rather than the "oppressed" in this situation. How is it appropriate for you to measure the level of offensiveness of something by polling the population of people who tradtionally have been the offenders? It's not really.

2. Polls only reflect what the mood is in the country, not necessarily what is the right course of action or the wrong course of action. In 2004 polls showed that the majority of Americans were opposed to Gay Marriage. Now polls show that the majority favor it. 30 years ago if you polled for whether Gays should be allowed to marry it would have been a landslide against Gay Marriage, similar to the ratio in the two polls you cited (or worse). So that begs the question. Was Gay Marriage "wrong" in 2004 but "right" in 2014. Was it even more "wrong" in 1984? Nah... it just answered what the country was ready to accept without discomfort.

The problem is history shows us that many times on social issues people have to pulled kicking and screaming into a new reality when they aren't necessarily ready to accept it. Was the N-word thought of positively in the 60's? No but a lot of people felt it was acceptable to use it. And in the 40's two thirds of americans supported segregated schools and a majority still supported it in the 60's even though today the vast majority would consider the idea absurd.

Now you may say that the ratios of the polls were closer and that's true but how close does the poll need to be to be taken as a signal of needed change? It's rather arbitrary no?

Inertia is difficult to get past. People don't like change. They cling to their tradition. And in fact almost every unjust discriminitory practice in history has used "tradition" as a defense. If there had been other nationally beloved sports franchises that were nicknamed with racial stereotypes and people attempted to change them, I think you would have seen similar resistance as you're seeing with the Redskins right now. Now it may have happened sooner if say there was a team called the "Negroes" (another term that wasn't initially intended as offensive but is not something many black people want to be referred to as) but how much of that has to do with the fact that Native Americans make up only 2% of the population as opposed 13% for blacks? Would you think it's perfectly fine to have a team called the "Negroes"? And if not why fight so hard to keep the name "Redskins"?

(these are questions I'm just throwing out there for the population in general btw... I'm not necessarily asking them of anyone in particular if they don't apply).

These are the types of questions that need to be asked.

[burrrton]

I think I'm mostly inclined to agree with you guys at this point, but I'll reply anyway:

Polls only reflect what the mood is in the country, not necessarily what is the right course of action or the wrong course of action.

You bet- I just think the "right course" should be based on strong evidence (for lack of a better term), and not as a reactionary path decided by a vocal minority.

In this case, the argument against the name is that it's offensive- shouldn't that offensiveness be apparent somewhere before we demand action be taken on our claim? Shouldn't a poll firmly establishing Native Americans find it offensive precede the demand for change?

I find Bob's point about younger NAs probably being much more sensitive about the slur persuasive, so I doubt a poll should be *that* hard to put together illustrating the offensiveness.

Of course I see the parallels with other offensive terms, but I think there's a spectrum of gray area here that doesn't exist for other, more highly-inflammatory names.

[kalibane]

Meh a poll might be helpful to your case but I don't think you need to produce a poll to prove that it's an offensive term. The fact that the word carries an "offensive" label in every dictionary you look it up in kind of makes it fall into the common sense category.

Growing up I never thought it was anything but a word with a negative connotation. I've never heard someone in real life or in works of fiction use the word as a means to convey reverence. Nor have I seen it used in a History Book in all those year ago as a simle descriptor. That in and of itself is odd if it's just an innocuous term don't you think? I mean I've seen black folk refered to as negro or colored, both terms that have fallen out of favor and are either considered offensive outright (colored) or borderline (negro), but never Redskin.

I guess you have to ask what's the magic number that makes it offensive? But that seems rather patronizing. If a signficant portion of the population finds it offensive it just seems like the right thing to do would be to respect that.

I mean they aren't even all one people, like say black americans in this country who's descendants almost all share the common experience of their ancestors being brought over as chattel. They are different tribes spread out all over the country from different regions with different experiences. A Native American in the North East had a completely different experience than one from a tribe on the trail of tears. The culture among the Aleut tribes is completely different from the Southwestern tribes with a mexican influence. Seems kind of presumptuous that we would require some kind of consensus from such widely varied groups of people just because we kind of throw them into some generic catch all "Native American" population to describe the indigenous people.

I don't think we are really at odds. I guess I just approach it from the standpoint of, what's the point of fighting this so hard? If there is a decent chance of being on the wrong side of history I don't see changing the name as such a big deal. It's not like if he loses the name Redskins that his $2 billion dollar asset is going to lose value. It really just makes him seem like kind of a dick. But eh.. it is his toy I guess.

Of course he lost his trademark on the term so if he can't successfully appeal that ruling this may all be prefunctary. He'll have to change it just to protect merchandising rights.

[burrrton]

If a signficant portion of the population finds it offensive it just seems like the right thing to do would be to respect that.

Sure- I guess I'm just not yet convinced we have a significant portion of the population finding it offensive- just a very vocal minority to this point.

And I agree that the dictionary calling it offensive can reasonably be argued to put its offensiveness under "common sense". However, then doesn't the fact that the name has peacefully been part of a billion dollar enterprise for half a century, is widely supported by all ethnicities, and so on at least make it worth seriously debating before demanding change?

Seems kind of presumptuous that we would require some kind of consensus from such widely varied groups

Yeah, they all have varied cultures, but the name doesn't single anyone out so I'm not sure there's any reason to think the Sioux would be more or less offended than the Seminoles.

I guess I just approach it from the standpoint of, what's the point of fighting this so hard?

Agreed. He has to know it's at least questionable, and in that case, why cling to it like grim death. If it was me, the name probably would have been changed already.

Guessing, for Snyder, it looks to me like two things played into his stubbornness:

1. He feels like he's being attacked by the perpetually offended.
2. Public support is firmly in his favor by all indications.

Of course he lost his trademark on the term so if he can't successfully appeal that ruling this may all be prefunctary. He'll have to change it just to protect merchandising rights.

Yep. I think this was a *bit* of a reach for the USPTO (not sure the term's offensiveness has yet been sufficiently established to warrant yanking rights like that), but either way, a quick end to this stupid saga would be welcome.

[kalibane]

You might be right but it was the 2nd time they had their trademark yanked on these grounds. The first time Snyder successfully challenged in court that offensiveness wasn't proven and that the challenge wasn't filed in a timely matter. The appeals court successfully upheld the result but ONLY on the ruling that the challenge wasn't filed in a timely matter. So the question is what was the appeals court saying with that decision?

It'll be interesting to see how the Court treats that ruling. Judges absolutely hate being overturned on appeal. So if they treat not upholding a failure to prove the offensive nature of the trademark as a rebuke of that argument Snyder may not have much to stand on. Since the plaintiffs are so young in this case there will be no timeliness argument to rely on. I think it's going to be fascinating just from a pure legal wrangling standpoint.