Author Topic: The Real Meaning of the "Redskins" Debate  (Read 809 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline happyg

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 11,822
The Real Meaning of the "Redskins" Debate
« on: September 29, 2013, 12:40:58 PM »
As a general rule, the names of professional sports teams, and their connotations, are of little concern. No one cares that the Chicago White Sox don't wear white socks, or that Utah, where the NBA's Jazz are based, is the last place you'd think of when you think of jazz.

But the Washington Redskins are different. Their name is a big deal. A group of Native Americans is pursuing a suit to strip the name of federal trademark protection. A few publications have stopped using the term in stories about the team.

In May, 10 members of Congress wrote team owner Dan Snyder asking him to find a new name. Snyder, however, says that will "never" happen.

Plenty of commentators have expended plenty of words arguing for and against the idea. If I were Snyder, I'd have replaced "Redskins" a long time ago. But what the team, the NFL, the courts or Congress ought to do is not the only question. Another one is: Why does it matter so much?

The difference of opinion is not a mere matter of habit or upbringing, like "you like tomato, I like tomahto." It's not a matter of taste, like preferring green to purple. It goes to fundamental beliefs and values.

For insights on the subject, I emailed Jonathan Haidt, social psychologist, professor at New York University and author of the 2012 book "The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion."

He has argued that there are several "clusters of moral concerns" that affect how people think about issues. What distinguishes liberals is that they place great value on fairness, liberty and compassion -- to the exclusion of the other factors. Conservatives don't reject the liberal values, says Haidt, but they give equal or more weight to fostering loyalty, upholding authority and respecting the sacred.

How do all these motives color the debate over the Redskins' name? For the most part, Haidt thinks the issue splits Americans along familiar ideological lines.

"The left tends to value compassion particularly highly," he told me, especially when it concerns the victims of oppression. Not surprisingly, liberals perceive the name as a racial slur against Native Americans, one of the most ruthlessly abused groups in American history. The members of Congress said in their letter that the term is "a racial, derogatory slur akin to the 'N' word among African-Americans."

By that reasoning, nothing could justify its use as a team name. Expressions of racism, however familiar or fondly cherished, have no place in society. Non-Indians have no business telling Indians they should accept something they find degrading.

So why do most people prefer to leave it alone? Not because they're all bigots. A poll by The Washington Post found that about four out of five Redskins fans want to keep the name -- and that only 11 percent of Americans support a change. In a country that has twice elected a black president, it's hard to make the case that 89 percent of the population is racially backward.

One reason for the prevailing sentiment is that many Native Americans don't object to the name. The Post reports that the leaders of three Virginia tribes -- the Pamunkey, the Patawomeck and the Rappahannock -- say it doesn't bother them. "About 98 percent of my tribe is Redskins fans, and it doesn't offend them, either," said one.

ESPN's Rick Reilly found high schools with mostly Native American student bodies that call their teams the Redskins. If even Indians disagree about the term, it's easier to justify keeping it.

Haidt says other elements also come into play. "The right tends to value group-loyalty and tradition particularly highly, and to hold symbols of their groups sacred, particularly when those groups are engaged in intergroup conflict," he said.

Traditions count for a lot among conservatives. To abandon a tradition without a very good reason strikes them as disloyal and unprincipled. Among liberals, by contrast, tradition is viewed as something less important, which is often used to excuse the inexcusable -- and sometimes has to give way to evolving standards of morality.

If we all thought it through the way Haidt does, we might have a more generous attitude toward those who disagree with us. It's too easy for either side to work itself into a lather, viewing the other side as totally clueless. But on this issue, both sides have plenty of clues. They just have different ones.

http://townhall.com/columnists/stevechapman/2013/09/29/the-real-meaning-of-the-redskins-debate-n1711732?utm_source=thdaily&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl

Offline Cincinnatus

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 5,514
Re: The Real Meaning of the "Redskins" Debate
« Reply #1 on: September 29, 2013, 02:09:04 PM »
Quote
A few publications have stopped using the term in stories about the team.

In sports today the Washington Censoreds won a close victory over...
We shall never be abandoned by Heaven while we act worthy of its aid ~~ Samuel Adams

Offline mountaineer

  • Member
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 36,522
Re: The Real Meaning of the "Redskins" Debate
« Reply #2 on: September 29, 2013, 04:32:41 PM »
I remember some clown of a sportscaster who referred to Atlanta's baseball team as "the Ted Turners" because he didn't want to say that awful word "Braves."
A day without sunshine is like, you know, night.

Offline happyg

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 11,822
Re: The Real Meaning of the "Redskins" Debate
« Reply #3 on: September 29, 2013, 04:55:08 PM »
Using the names, Redskins and Braves, are a complement, unless they lose all the time.  :whistle:

Offline DCPatriot

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 32,817
Re: The Real Meaning of the "Redskins" Debate
« Reply #4 on: September 29, 2013, 04:56:00 PM »
In sports today the Washington Censoreds won a close victory over...


...Oakland Raiders!   :laugh:
"It aint what you don't know that kills you.  It's what you know that aint so!" ...Theodore Sturgeon

"Journalism is about covering the news.  With a pillow.  Until it stops moving."    - Iowahawk

Offline sinkspur

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 28,691
Re: The Real Meaning of the "Redskins" Debate
« Reply #5 on: September 29, 2013, 05:33:30 PM »
There's no debate that the Redskins suck this year. 
Roy Moore's "spiritual warfare" is driving past a junior high without stopping.

Offline Olivia

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 968
Re: The Real Meaning of the "Redskins" Debate
« Reply #6 on: September 29, 2013, 06:09:18 PM »
Some people are constantly looking for ways to scream racism.  In America, it's completely out of hand.
Steve Chapman is a liberal so if you read the article carefully, you will see the subtle way in which he tries to hide it.
Truthfully, the most important thing in life is knowing what the most important things in life are, and prioritizing them accordingly.   Melchor Lim

Offline jmyrlefuller

  • Krampus
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 13,285
  • Angry goat-like creature
Re: The Real Meaning of the "Redskins" Debate
« Reply #7 on: September 29, 2013, 06:10:13 PM »
The argument that the Redskins name is somehow not racist is bull****. The founder of the team, George Preston Marshall, was one of the most nakedly racist men on the planet. He kept his own team all-white for the first three decades of existence, and only integrated it when forced to in stadium negotiations. Heck, many people point to his influence keeping nonwhites out of the entire league for over a decade. Of course Redskins was a slur! He picked it because it was more offensive than Braves (he launched the team in Boston and at first named it after the baseball team still in Boston at the time) and the irony of an all-white team with that name surely was not lost on him.

The fact is, though, it has been allowed to stand for 80 years now and, thanks to the fandom of numerous politicians and lobbyists, is now one of the most valuable professional sports franchises in the world. Nobody wanted to touch this back in '62, when a pro football team wasn't anywhere near as valuable as it is today-- that's when they forced Marshall to integrate. They certainly want that now that the Redskins have a value of over a billion dollars. That's what this is all about-- MONEY. You see, the native people have always griped about native names on sports teams; it's only now that it has gained any sort of momentum. Certain professional complainers want a piece of the pie. They saw the concussion settlement and smelt blood.

As for the papers, it's easy enough to refer to the Redskins as "Washington." (e.g. "The Oakland Raiders lead Washington, 14-10.") It'd hardly be noticeable.

Offline Olivia

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 968
Re: The Real Meaning of the "Redskins" Debate
« Reply #8 on: September 29, 2013, 07:08:17 PM »
The argument that the Redskins name is somehow not racist is bull****. The founder of the team, George Preston Marshall, was one of the most nakedly racist men on the planet. He kept his own team all-white for the first three decades of existence, and only integrated it when forced to in stadium negotiations. Heck, many people point to his influence keeping nonwhites out of the entire league for over a decade. Of course Redskins was a slur! He picked it because it was more offensive than Braves (he launched the team in Boston and at first named it after the baseball team still in Boston at the time) and the irony of an all-white team with that name surely was not lost on him.

The fact is, though, it has been allowed to stand for 80 years now and, thanks to the fandom of numerous politicians and lobbyists, is now one of the most valuable professional sports franchises in the world. Nobody wanted to touch this back in '62, when a pro football team wasn't anywhere near as valuable as it is today-- that's when they forced Marshall to integrate. They certainly want that now that the Redskins have a value of over a billion dollars. That's what this is all about-- MONEY. You see, the native people have always griped about native names on sports teams; it's only now that it has gained any sort of momentum. Certain professional complainers want a piece of the pie. They saw the concussion settlement and smelt blood.

As for the papers, it's easy enough to refer to the Redskins as "Washington." (e.g. "The Oakland Raiders lead Washington, 14-10.") It'd hardly be noticeable.

The only thing I'm saying is this...if a football franchise decided to call their team the White Skins, it wouldn't affect me in the least. 
Truthfully, the most important thing in life is knowing what the most important things in life are, and prioritizing them accordingly.   Melchor Lim

Offline Lando Lincoln

  • Member
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 11,928
Re: The Real Meaning of the "Redskins" Debate
« Reply #9 on: September 29, 2013, 07:50:17 PM »
« Last Edit: September 29, 2013, 07:53:10 PM by Lando Lincoln »
For the progressive, there is very little to love about the United States. Washington, Jefferson, Madison? A bunch of rotten slaveholders, hypocrites, and cowards even when their hearts were in the right places. The Declaration of Independence? A manifesto for the propertied classes. The Constitution? An artifact of sexism and white supremacy. The sacrifices in the great wars of the 20th century? Feeding the poor and the disenfranchised into the meat-grinder of imperialism. The gifts of Carnegie, Rockefeller, Vanderbilt, Morgan, Astor? Blood money from self-aggrandizing robber barons. Nat Rev


Share me

Digg  Facebook  SlashDot  Delicious  Technorati  Twitter  Google  Yahoo
Smf