Milhouse
Well-known member
- Joined
- Mar 16, 2011
- Messages
- 18,629
- Reaction score
- 3,852
Yes. I could also add a new category of "people are unable to discuss anything until we have a cure for cancer."
you could
Yes. I could also add a new category of "people are unable to discuss anything until we have a cure for cancer."
That is like proving a negative. I think the burden should be on people that want the name changed. The main argument for changing the name is that the word is offensive. However, the evidence points to the fact that very few people (American Indiana or otherwise) find it offensive.
In this thread, in addition to numerous personal stories, we’ve discussed an entire tribe campaigning to change the name, lawsuits filed by Native Americans with the backing of several tribes, and the National Congress of American Indians issuing a 29-page on the harmfulness of the name. Is there a certain number of people you need to get to before you stop dismissing them as “anecdotal” or “very few”?
Again, I don't know what the number is but any poll that has been done on this has shown a very small number of American Indians have a problem with all of this. The leaders of those organizations are not representing the vast majority's thoughts (if the polls are to be believed).
I haven't seen a poll that addresses the specific term "redskins" since the SI poll 10 years ago.
As I said earlier, I think the main argument that defenders use ("few people find it offensive") is about to be null. With all the media attention this has gotten people will eventually be convinced that the word / name is offensive. That is why I would go ahead and change the name now.
Again, I don't know what the number is but any poll that has been done on this has shown a very small number of American Indians have a problem with all of this. The leaders of those organizations are not representing the vast majority's thoughts (if the polls are to be believed).
BTW, is anyone going to take 7882 Deac up on his offer?
Good grief, this isn't about convincing people about the offensiveness.
Let's have a hypothetical. Let's say 150 years ago, back when n*gger was a commonly used word, the owner of a baseball team adopted the word "n*ggers" as the mascot of his team. That team becomes widely popular and, therefore, people have a connection to it and feel like it is tradition. Would you really by the argument that "n*gger" is then only an offensive term when NOT being used to reference the baseball team, but is perfectly okay as the mascot of the team?
Yeah, this is one of the problems: assuming that "Redskins" was always used derogatorily. It was not, and some Indians have and do now use it positively. How the word was and is used, just as with many many other words, depends on intent and context. In the context of the Washington professional football team the word has no racist intent or content.
The counter arguments appear to be that some people believe it is offensive, or that it sounds offensive, or that in different times and different contexts it has sometimes, but not always, been used with the intention of offending. Just because some people believe something is so, does not make it so, especially not when the basic requirements for making the word offensive are missing: context and intent. What something sounds like is a silly argument. This is not about Italian opera, where what things sound like is very imortant. Contradictory usage in the past is not a very convincing argument that only one interpretation is today possible no matter the context or the intent of the user of the word.
I'm pretty sure perception is reality in terms of offense. That's kind of the point.
When a perception is shown to be mistaken, intelligent people change their perception. And it is most certainly not intelligent to keep trying to perpetuate the erroneous perception.
So if someone is offended by something that you find to be unoffensive in terms of context and intent, then that person is an idiot. Got it.
When a perception is shown to be mistaken, intelligent people change their perception. And it is most certainly not intelligent to keep trying to perpetuate the erroneous perception.
Who determines whether the perception is mistaken? Are you saying that these Native American activists are not intelligent because they are continuing to perpetuate the fact that they think Redskins is a racist name?
If we are to have a tolerant and civilized society, we cannot disassociate the meaning of words from their context and the intentions of those proclaiming them. These native American activists may be intelligent, or they may not be intelligent. All we can say is that if they ignore intention and context, they are behaving unintelligently and perpetuating error.
If we are to have a tolerant and civilized society, we cannot disassociate the meaning of words from their context and the intentions of those proclaiming them. These native American activists may be intelligent, or they may not be intelligent. All we can say is that if they ignore intention and context, they are behaving unintelligently and perpetuating error.
I get your point. For example, in this sentence the word isn't offensive "Man I love redskin potatoes" because it is not offensive to refer to a potato that has red skin as a redskin potato.
The problem is, in the case of the Washington Redskins it is referring to a mascot that is portrayed as the exact instance and example of redskin being an offensive term- as a term referring to American Indians.
Context is, as you say, paramount. The problem is, the context you are defending is one of the offensive contexts.
I'll leave aside the fact that context is only part of the story, intention is also paramount. OK, let's talk about context. What is offensive about fierceness, bravery, strength, spirit, struggling against formidable odds, self-sacrifice and the will to win, which are all qualities associated with native Americans and necessary for successfully playing football? You try playing football without them.
Or are they adding context by giving their own thoughts and feelings on the matter?
You still haven't said who is the one who determines whether their perception is erroneous or not.