Posted on 08/13/2013 11:45:00 AM PDT by Kaslin
The online magazine Slate announced last week that it will never again refer to the Washington's National Football League team, the Redskins, by its name.
The name, according to Slate, offends American Indians, and therefore should be dropped. And until such time, Slate will never mention it. It will become, in effect, the R-word.
The article, to its credit, acknowledged that the term "redskins" was not coined as a racist epithet:
"The word redskin has a relatively innocent history. As Smithsonian linguist Ives Goddard has shown, European settlers in the 18th century seem to have adopted the term from Native Americans, who used 'red skin' to describe themselves, and it was generally a descriptor, not an insult."
So, then, what's so bad about the name Redskins?
Slate Argument One: "Here's a quick thought experiment: Would any team, naming itself today, choose "Redskins" or adopt the team's Indian-head logo? Of course it wouldn't."
Response: There are many teams with names that wouldn't be adopted today. Who would name a team the "Red Sox," "White Sox," "Packers," "Dodgers," "Forty-Niners," "Steelers," or, for that matter, "Yankees?"
Slate Argument Two: "While the name Redskins is only a bit offensive, it's extremely tacky and dated -- like an old aunt who still talks about 'colored people.' ... "
Response: Since Slate dismisses the term "colored people" as "tacky and dated," why doesn't it call on the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (the NAACP), to change its name?
Slate Argument Three: "Changing how you talk changes how you think. ... Replacing 'same-sex marriage' with 'marriage equality' helped make gay marriage a universal cause rather than a special pleading."
Response: It's nice to have at least one left-wing source acknowledge how the left changes language to promote its causes. When more and more people began to suspect that global warming was not about to bring an apocalypse, and that, at the very least, it is in a pause mode, the left changed the term to "climate change."
The "marriage equality" substitution for "same-sex marriage" is just one more example of dishonest manipulation of English.
Orwellian manipulation of language by the left would be reason enough to oppose dropping "Redskins," a nearly 80-year-old tradition venerated by millions.
Argument Four is the key argument, offered by the Atlantic, in its support of Slate:
Response: "Whether people 'should' be offended by it or not doesn't matter; the fact that some people are offended by it does."
This is classic modern liberalism. It is why I have dubbed our age "The Age of Feelings."
In classic progressive fashion, the Atlantic writer commits two important errors.
First, it does matter "whether people 'should' feel offended." If we ceased using all arguments or descriptions because some people feel offended, we would cease using any arguments or descriptions. We should use the "reasonable person" test to determine what is offensive, not the "some people are offended" criterion.
On a recent broadcast of my radio show, I played excerpts of winning songs from the recent Eurovision Contest. One of them was from Hungary, and after I announced the Hungarian title, I jokingly translated it as "Let's invade Romania."
A man called up, and in unaccented English said he was of Hungarian stock and that I should apologize for offending him and Hungarians generally. I told him that his taking offense at a harmless joke was his problem, not what I said.
Teaching people to take offense is one of the left's black arts. Outside of sex and drugs, the left is pretty much joyless and it kills joy constantly. The war on the "Redskins" name is just the latest example.
Second, it is the left that specializes in offending: labeling the Tea Party racist, public cursing, displaying crucifixes in urine, and regularly calling Republicans evil (Paul Krugman, in his New York Times column last month, wrote that the Republican mindset "takes positive glee in inflicting further suffering on the already miserable." For such people to find the name "Redskins" offensive is a hoot.
The New Republic announced on Thursday that it would follow Slate's lead. And Mother Jones said on Friday it, too, will avoid using this R-word. They join The Washington City Paper, Washington online site DCist.com, the Kansas City Star and football writers at the Buffalo News and the Philadelphia Daily News. If the Redskins have any pride, they should not allow reporters from any of these publications into the Redskins locker room or give them free seats to any Redskins games.
The logo of the National Hockey League team, the Ottawa Senators, features a helmeted male senator of the Roman Empire. In the name of not offending the transgendered and of gender equality, the left will one day find that offensive, too; and demand that the logo feature a helmeted female as well.
That is one of many reasons to fight the left on changing Redskins name. The left never stops.
“like an old aunt who still talks about ‘colored people’”
I still say that term, and negro, and black. I will not use the currently mandated hyphenated name.
Two years later, I made a sales call to the casino offices and encountered three members of the tribe wearing Washington Redskins caps and sweatshirts.
I mentioned this to some hand-wringing liberals and they were aghast that the Indians were "still being adversely influenced by a white culture that demeans them."
My reply, "You might have something there. My horse was greatly offended when I told him that a mere human was once named Crazy Horse. The poor animal has been seeing an animal psychiatrist for three weeks now trying to get past that demeaning insult."
The people at the United African American College Fund would like a word with you.
I think Packers is just wrong. Now if they moved to San Francisco..
For some reason, it’s politically correct to say “people of color” but highly politically incorrect to say “colored people.”
If they can’t be the Washington Redskins, why not just call them the Washington Foreskins?
They actually play in Maryland.
I vote for “Beltway Baraqqis”
What is a “people of color”. Is it someoneone with blonde, red, or auburn hair, blue, green, gray, or hazel eyes? Or is it anyone who has brown hair and brown eyes?
“The article, to its credit, acknowledged that the term ‘redskins’ was not coined as a racist epithet....”
Nor were almost all the other words that give today’s oh-so-sensitive folks the fainting swoons. There is probably a term for the psychological syndrome of consistently seeking out ways to hear “racism” in words.
Why do liberals lecture us on so many issues? We get lectured about the evils of capitalism, racism, sexism, bullying of homosexual youth, global warming, and other liberal causes. American Indian team nicknames are another liberal =cause for which we’re supposed to react with outrage that these team names exist. We’re led to believe that our lives will be =complete if only Indian nicknames are eradicated from the face of the earth.
Do liberals have too much time on their hands, when liberals feel such angst over a subject such as this?
I find the term Cowboys offensive. I was a real cowboy in my youth and take offense to felons and thugs being called that...
I am a Vikings can, but I find it offensive, because the real Vikings of yesteryear, were not nice people at all.
The Vikings of old may not have been nice, but at least they would make it to the Superbowl!
I fully expect the Redskins to cave—as did the Swiss handbag shop, the Missouri State Fair, and just about everyone else who gets accused of “racism.”
Hilariously, Syracuse U changed their mascot name a few years ago from Orange Men to just “Orange.” The fruit should be outraged!!
tick tick tick tick......
Red — I mean R-word death watch.
Redskin Potatoes?
Washington Wampum?
It doesn’t matter. Concussions should make football extinct in a few years.
Perhaps there are enough Blacks on the R-skins team for them to change it’s name to Blackskins.
The country is on fire and the world is going to Hell, yet this kind of crap is somehow important!? There are far too many Thinskins.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.