Redskins lose their trademark

[Rondo2287]

The false outrage in this country continues to aggravate me.  The name will get changed then people will move on to their next non-issue

[Rakulp]

The false outrage in this country continues to aggravate me.  The name will get changed then people will move on to their next non-issue

I'll be long dead and gone before the Redskins change their name.

And I plan on being around until Banner 20 gets raised!

Rak

[greg683x]

The false outrage in this country continues to aggravate me.  The name will get changed then people will move on to their next non-issue

I'll be long dead and gone before the Redskins change their name.

And I plan on being around until Banner 20 gets raised!

Rak

I'm pretty sure Snyder isnt gonna change that name until the supreme court tells him he has to.  So yeah that would take an eternity to resolve.

.....or if FedEx or Budweiser pull their sponsorship deals, which I dont think will happen.

[Celtics18]

The false outrage in this country continues to aggravate me.  The name will get changed then people will move on to their next non-issue

The aggravation over false outrage in this country continues to annoy me. 

[Moranis]

It boils down to whether you think the name is a pejorative or not, much as with any other identifying word.  If you associate the word Redskin with negative things, then it's a pejorative, if not, it's not.  If you associated the word Irish with negative things, it'd be a pejorative.  There's a lot of phony outrage that is nothing more than transparent status signaling.

So if I think the "N" word is not negative it is ok to use.  Irish are people from Ireland.  A Redskin is a derogatory term for Native Americans.  They aren't any where close to the same thing.  Again, the fact that you think they are is the reason you can't trust the masses on these things.

Words have generally agreed upon meanings (obviously, sometimes several meanings), but within context, they usually mean one thing.  They're either pejorative or they're not.  In terms of word usage, Redskin is pretty exclusively used as the nickname of the football team, and it is never used as a pejorative.  If this were a word either meant or used as a pejorative, then fine, be offended.  Since it's not, what we have is preening, phony outrage meant to show how right-thinking the outraged are.  It's status seeking theater.

This is not an issue driven by Native Americans.

Redskin is not almost exclusively used as a nickname of a football team.  It may be where you are at because you may not have that many Native Americans around or that many people who are racist towards Native Americans, but it is absolutely a slur used to describe Native Americans in many places.  Just as cracker is for Whites, wetbacks for Hispanics, etc.  The more of a said group in an area, the more said terms are used. 

If you are so sure it is not a pejorative, why don't you start going up to Native Americans and call them Redskins and see what the response is?

[Mencius]

Redskin is not almost exclusively used as a nickname of a football team.  It may be where you are at because you may not have that many Native Americans around or that many people who are racist towards Native Americans, but it is absolutely a slur used to describe Native Americans in many places.  Just as cracker is for Whites, wetbacks for Hispanics, etc.  The more of a said group in an area, the more said terms are used. 

You're blowing a lot of smoke.  I live in the desert southwest.  Several tribes in my area.  Nobody uses the word Redskin as a pejorative.  The word simply isn't used at all outside the context of team mascots. 

Your comparisons fall apart because the words cracker and wetback are actively, currently used as pejoratives; redskins is not, anywhere.  As to you saying Redskins is still in use outside the context of football mascots, please, do show an example... anywhere, of such usage, in say, the last 20 years?  Good luck with that.  In the context of the football team mascot, pretty much the only context in which it is used, it portrays native americans in a positive light.

If you are so sure it is not a pejorative, why don't you start going up to Native Americans and call them Redskins and see what the response is?

It would be absurd to go up to anybody, of any race, and address them using a racial identifier.  It would be effrontery, regardless of race.    Bottom line, nobody uses Redskin as a group identifier for them.  It's usage is limited to mascots, where they are portrayed positively.

[Future Celtics Owner]

Redskin is not almost exclusively used as a nickname of a football team.  It may be where you are at because you may not have that many Native Americans around or that many people who are racist towards Native Americans, but it is absolutely a slur used to describe Native Americans in many places.  Just as cracker is for Whites, wetbacks for Hispanics, etc.  The more of a said group in an area, the more said terms are used. 

You don't know what you're talking about.  I live in the desert southwest.  Several tribes in my area.  Nobody uses the word Redskin as a pejorative.  The word simply isn't used at all outside the context of team mascots. 

Your comparisons fall apart because the words cracker and wetback are actively, currently used as pejoratives; redskins is not, anywhere.  As to you saying Redskins is still in use outside the context of football mascots, please, do show an example... anywhere, of such usage, in say, the last 20 years?  Good luck with that.  In the context of the football team mascot, pretty much the only context in which it is used, it portrays native americans in a positive light.

If you are so sure it is not a pejorative, why don't you start going up to Native Americans and call them Redskins and see what the response is?

It would be absurd to go up to anybody, of any race, and address them using a racial identifier.  It would be effrontery to anybody, of any race.    Bottom line, nobody uses Redskin as a group identifier for them.  It's usage is limited to mascots, and they are portrayed positively.

Not only is it used positively....the team gives tons of cash to Native American groups...If I was the owner id probably stop that, obviously the groups getting paid and celebrated are not sticking up enough for the team.

Its sad too, because polls done show most NA do not care. But there are always some disenfranchised ...and there is always the PC police. Now the celebrating of a great group will die and the the memory will fade in to history because celebrating a rearm literally no one uses "offends" .

[Smokeeye123]

Redskin is not almost exclusively used as a nickname of a football team.  It may be where you are at because you may not have that many Native Americans around or that many people who are racist towards Native Americans, but it is absolutely a slur used to describe Native Americans in many places.  Just as cracker is for Whites, wetbacks for Hispanics, etc.  The more of a said group in an area, the more said terms are used. 

You don't know what you're talking about.  I live in the desert southwest.  Several tribes in my area.  Nobody uses the word Redskin as a pejorative.  The word simply isn't used at all outside the context of team mascots. 

Your comparisons fall apart because the words cracker and wetback are actively, currently used as pejoratives; redskins is not, anywhere.  As to you saying Redskins is still in use outside the context of football mascots, please, do show an example... anywhere, of such usage, in say, the last 20 years?  Good luck with that.  In the context of the football team mascot, pretty much the only context in which it is used, it portrays native americans in a positive light.

If you are so sure it is not a pejorative, why don't you start going up to Native Americans and call them Redskins and see what the response is?

It would be absurd to go up to anybody, of any race, and address them using a racial identifier.  It would be effrontery, regardless of race.    Bottom line, nobody uses Redskin as a group identifier for them.  It's usage is limited to mascots, where they are portrayed positively.

Just because you cant find a recording or newspaper clip from the last 20 years of someone using redskins in a derogative fashion doesn't mean nobody on the face of the earth has ever used it in a derogative way in the last 20 years...Because I'm pretty sure it's been done hundreds if not thousands of times.

Redskin is different from Braves/Chiefs/Indians because it references skin color, something I think is trying to be abolished in 2014.

[D.o.s.]

It boils down to whether you think the name is a pejorative or not, much as with any other identifying word.  If you associate the word Redskin with negative things, then it's a pejorative, if not, it's not.  If you associated the word Irish with negative things, it'd be a pejorative.  There's a lot of phony outrage that is nothing more than transparent status signaling.

So if I think the "N" word is not negative it is ok to use.  Irish are people from Ireland.  A Redskin is a derogatory term for Native Americans.  They aren't any where close to the same thing.  Again, the fact that you think they are is the reason you can't trust the masses on these things.

Words have generally agreed upon meanings (obviously, sometimes several meanings), but within context, they usually mean one thing.  They're either pejorative or they're not.  In terms of word usage, Redskin is pretty exclusively used as the nickname of the football team, and it is never used as a pejorative. 

What characterizes this issue most is the phony outrage whipped up by status seeking whites, to signal to each other how good-thinking they are.  This is not an issue driven by Native Americans.

you keep saying this, but I'm not sure how you can come to that conclusion so definitively without having your mind made up before hand.

Redskins, the word, is a derogatory term. The fact that its a football team is secondary to the fact that, for all intents and purposes, it's the same thing as calling them the Washington Gooks, or whatever.

It's not the utterance of any given series of grunts and vowels that matter.  It's only the meaning attached to them that matters.  The obvious difference between gook and redskin is that gook is intended as a pejorative, while redskin is not.  Language is not static.  Redskins' usage is pretty well limited to the team nickname at this point, and it is never used pejoratively, unless you're a Cowboy fan who hates the Skins.  This issue's not even driven by Native Americans, but rather by ever helpful whites (Here, let me be outraged for you.  Meanwhile, have you noticed how good and right-thinking I am?)

I agree with you as far as linguistic signifiers go -- no one refers to a cigarette as a **** anymore, either -- but to say that no Native Americans are offended by it, when obviously some of them are (go google the Oneida Nation of New York and see how they feel about it) is disingenuous.

To my eyes, this much less about the agenda of persons that feel compelled to feel aggrieved for other people (who are totally out there, to be sure) and much more about the people who don't want to be reminded that they don't find the common use of derogatory language offensive, and what that might reflect about themselves, morally speaking.

[Donoghus]

The false outrage in this country continues to aggravate me.  The name will get changed then people will move on to their next non-issue

The aggravation over false outrage in this country continues to annoy me.

Are you outraged and offended by this Redskins issue?

[Celtics18]

It boils down to whether you think the name is a pejorative or not, much as with any other identifying word.  If you associate the word Redskin with negative things, then it's a pejorative, if not, it's not.  If you associated the word Irish with negative things, it'd be a pejorative.  There's a lot of phony outrage that is nothing more than transparent status signaling.

So if I think the "N" word is not negative it is ok to use.  Irish are people from Ireland.  A Redskin is a derogatory term for Native Americans.  They aren't any where close to the same thing.  Again, the fact that you think they are is the reason you can't trust the masses on these things.

Words have generally agreed upon meanings (obviously, sometimes several meanings), but within context, they usually mean one thing.  They're either pejorative or they're not.  In terms of word usage, Redskin is pretty exclusively used as the nickname of the football team, and it is never used as a pejorative. 

What characterizes this issue most is the phony outrage whipped up by status seeking whites, to signal to each other how good-thinking they are.  This is not an issue driven by Native Americans.

you keep saying this, but I'm not sure how you can come to that conclusion so definitively without having your mind made up before hand.

Redskins, the word, is a derogatory term. The fact that its a football team is secondary to the fact that, for all intents and purposes, it's the same thing as calling them the Washington Gooks, or whatever.

It's not the utterance of any given series of grunts and vowels that matter.  It's only the meaning attached to them that matters.  The obvious difference between gook and redskin is that gook is intended as a pejorative, while redskin is not.  Language is not static.  Redskins' usage is pretty well limited to the team nickname at this point, and it is never used pejoratively, unless you're a Cowboy fan who hates the Skins.  This issue's not even driven by Native Americans, but rather by ever helpful whites (Here, let me be outraged for you.  Meanwhile, have you noticed how good and right-thinking I am?)

I agree with you as far as linguistic signifiers go -- no one refers to a cigarette as a **** anymore, either -- but to say that no Native Americans are offended by it, when obviously some of them are (go google the Oneida Nation of New York and see how they feel about it) is disingenuous.

To my eyes, this much less about the agenda of persons that feel compelled to feel aggrieved for other people (who are totally out there, to be sure) and much more about the people who don't want to be reminded that they don't find the common use derogatory language offensive, and what that might reflect about themselves, morally speaking.

I'm pretty sure that in England they still commonly use the term for cigarette that Celticsblog won't let you type. 

[D.o.s.]

Speaking as someone who's English, it seems to be in recession. 

[Celtics18]

Speaking as someone who's English, it seems to be in recession. 

Really?  I'll admit that it's been a few years since I've been there, but I can't imagine the term has completely left the vernacular.

[D.o.s.]

Depends on who you associate with, I suppose. the US still has skinheads, too, but their beliefs are hardly as popular as they were even twenty years ago (except, perhaps, among Dan Snyder supporters).

[fairweatherfan]

This is kind of a tangent, but what's up with the term "status signaling"?  I've never heard it before but it's showing up multiple times in the thread.  Is that the new buzzword for this kind of issue?  I like it - it's vague enough to be applicable to basically anything, attaches well to pre-existing stereotypes, and has that pseudo-intellectual veneer that old-fashioned "showing off" doesn't, while still having few enough syllables that it's easy to remember, unlike something fancier like "verbal semaphore".  Whoever focus tested it should get a raise.