NickyJ wrote:The only way the name will be changed is through a lawsuit. Dan Snyder has the guts to not change the name because a small minority decided that a vast majority is wrong about a single word.
All those colleges changing their names is fine and well, but they never needed to. That was their decision, and sticking with our name is ours.
If only 20% of people don't like something, there's not much point in changing it. You can't please all the people all the time. If there is little support to change something, should we? If 20% of FootballIdiot's users were upset with the name because it called them idiots, should the owner change it to please only a fraction of the users?
You say that we support keeping the name for the sake of history, in spite of racism in the name. Is the name racist, though? How do you decide? Wouldn't it be by asking the people it was directed at?
When the U.S. holds a Presidential election in 2016, if 80% voted in favor of candidate A, would that not settle it? Would Mexico and Canada have the right to step in and put candidate B in power because 20% didn't vote for A?
--------------
Either way, I've given my thoughts on the subject, and my opinion shall stay as solid as the majority of native Americans that decided in favor of the Redskins' name. Debating it further would continue the circles that we've already run in, so I'll leave it at that.
Fair enough, but since we’re all giving closing statements, I’d like to throw my final thoughts out there as well.
In every communication, there is a speaker and a receiver. The receiver, however, doesn’t own a monopoly on being offended. The speaker can choose to not say certain words or phrases - even if they know the receiver will not be offended – because the speaker themself finds those words offensive. In this case, it is the etymology of the word that is troubling.
The word Redskins has its roots in racism; it was used by Europeans to disparage Native Americans and it continues today. Nowhere outside of sports is that term acceptable, and even further to that, no other race or group in North American society is caricatured, commodified, marketed and sold as often as Native Americans. It is almost impossible to think of another race in North America where this practice is as widespread and accepted than with Native Americans.
The Washington logo is full of inaccuracies starting with the implication that all Native Americans have red skin or use red paint all the time. The supposed depiction of the chief carries two eagle feathers, even though eagle feathers are the highest honour that Native Americans can receive...sort of like the Congressional Medal of Honor or the Order of the British Empire. However, unlike the Congressional Medal of Honor or the MBE badge, it is commodified and mass produced like it’s nothing. That’s not to mention how it cool it looks on some drunk fan who wears red face paint and a headdress to games, and enjoys heckling the opposing team’s medical staff.
Those colleges that changed their names did not do so arbitrarily nor did they do so to pander to minorities or to be politically correct. To dismiss their stories would be foolish. Stanford for example, called their team the Indians and for years, they respected the dignity of the Native people by dressing cheerleaders appropriately when wearing Native attire. The fans did not mock Native American behaviour and schools with Native American names dressed their bands to try to outdo each other. Then, attitudes changed.
Journal of Sport & Social Issues, April 1993 wrote:During the late 1950s, something began to happen. Fans and students alike began to abandon this dignity, replacing it with racist remarks, ignorance, and mockery. These displays were shown on local, state, and national television. Like a plague it spread, and team after team adopted this practice. Soon, mascots were warhooping and yelling in every major league stadium in America.
In Atlanta, Chief Noc-a-homa danced on network television each time the Braves hit a home run. Beginning with slogans on signs, fans began wearing and displaying Indian paraphernalia. The networks honored the sideshow with 5-second clips of the wildest -looking fans having fun. Competing for a spot on TV, the masquerades became even more racist with war-hooping, tomahawk-chopping,
and face-painting. With direct and indirect approval from sportswriters and photojournalists, these practices still continue today.
Facing widespread dissent from Native American and non-Native Americans, Stanford changed their nickname in 1972. Dartmouth, Illinois and UMass all either changed their name or got rid of their mascot soon after and there is no evidence that any of them lost revenue doing so.
------
I disagree with your analogy because it doesn’t accurate represent the situation. The name was not chosen by an election. Neither has there been a poll that has asked “do you support the name” but instead, something along the lines “are you offended” which raises questions about whether certain societies are less likely to say no, whether the self identified Native Americans had two Native parents or are they ¼ Native, 1/32 Native, etc. Or control variables for the kind of upbringing the self identified Native Americans in the poll grew up in. As a someone who has to read papers like this every week, all of these are important. I don’t just raise them to be difficult. We’re not going to agree on this issue and yes, we will have to agree to disagree. However, in order to illustrate how my perspective differs from yours, I’d like to offer my own analogy:
Let’s use a less controversial issue than race. Let’s instead, suppose that there is a PBS report that claims that Elvis is still alive and that all Texans believe he is alive. There is then a poll conducted to see how Texans feel about being associated with such a claim. The poll doesn’t ask whether they believe the claim is true, but rather, if they are offended. The results return that 80% of Texans are not offended.
There are multiple, fundamental problems with this poll but here are the big three. First, Elvis is dead, sorry to break it to you, so the reported needs to be retracted because it is factually incorrect. Second, there is a claim that all Texans believe this which is probably not true, but goes unaddressed. Thirdly, even if 80% of Texans aren’t offended by being associated with this claim, it still doesn’t change the fact that Elvis is dead. How did the either the PBS report or the poll even come up with their “Texans” anyways? Did they poll all those who were born in Texas or just those that live there now?
Likewise, I treat the term Redskins as a factual claim that is not true and carries a disparaging overtone about Native Americans. It does not strike the usual speakers of the term (mostly non-Native Americans) as disparaging because years of system and cultural racism by non-Native Americans towards Native Americans has desensitized the former group from consider the latter as human. The use of the name and logo perpetuates this cycle, although progress has been made in the last 50 years or so with Stanford and other schools changing their nicknames.