Political Correctness - How Far Should it Go? Should the Washington Redskins change their name?

[saevel25]

And my point is that it should be up to Snyder to decide how much negative effects he finds in such a name.   You say that no one would make a correlation between a buckeye and a crazy person and you might be right.   But then again, because I knew about the nut produced by the Buckeye tree, I was able off the top of my head to come up with that analogy.   Don't you think some lawyer couldn't do the same if in fact someone wanted to sue over the name?  Now, I agree that it is an unlikely scenario but then again, 10 years ago, this discussion would have been unlikely as well, as nobody was complaining about the Redskins name back then.

I am not saying they can't say it. I am just saying that if the Redskins want the team to be named that. Then it can be up to the court of law if that name warrants anyone of Native American decent punitive damages from the constant barrage of Publicity the team gives that name. In no way does that take away their first amendment rights, but actions has consequences. In some cases it is up to the courts to decide if the consequences are warranted or not. If someone sued the Buckeyes and asked for punitive damages, it would be up to the courts to decide if such compensation is warranted or not. That is in the right of a citizen under our nation's justice system. Once again, that in no way is baring the Redskins from using that word as the name for their team. If it happens to cost them way too much money, then that is the consequence of using that name. It is up to them to have to deal with it. If by your logic, then we should not have any sort of slander or libel lawsuits in this nation, right?

[teamroper60]

They're a smaller group of people. Chances are, you don't know one, never met one, and never will (not saying you in the personal sense but the general sense).

I'll disagree with that.  Especially since the federal government has several definitions for what constitutes a Native American.

[billchao]

I'll disagree with that.  Especially since the federal government has several definitions for what constitutes a Native American.

At the risk of getting OT, what exactly are you disagreeing with? I've made no absolutes in that quote. Edit: sorry, I made one. Native Americans are a smaller minority group than African Americans.

[teamroper60]

If by your logic, then we should not have any sort of slander or libel lawsuits in this nation, right?

No.  Not right.

Libel is by definition a published false statement that is damaging to a person's reputation.

Slander is a false statement, usually made orally, which defames another person.

Both of those pertain to an individual and in the case of slander, require proof of damage.

Far different that a sports team name that has existed since 1932 and while perhaps offensive to some, has not damaged the reputation of any particular person.

[teamroper60]

At the risk of getting OT, what exactly are you disagreeing with? I've made no absolutes in that quote.

Edit: sorry, I made one. Native Americans are a smaller minority group than African Americans.

I disagreed with the part I highlighted in bold.

And with that, I am done with this discussion.   My point remains that we have gone too far when we start chastising or censoring speech simply because somebody, somewhere, might be offended by it.

[mmoan2]

I am not saying they can't say it. I am just saying that if the Redskins want the team to be named that. Then it can be up to the court of law if that name warrants anyone of Native American decent punitive damages from the constant barrage of Publicity the team gives that name. In no way does that take away their first amendment rights, but actions has consequences. In some cases it is up to the courts to decide if the consequences are warranted or not. If someone sued the Buckeyes and asked for punitive damages, it would be up to the courts to decide if such compensation is warranted or not. That is in the right of a citizen under our nation's justice system. Once again, that in no way is baring the Redskins from using that word as the name for their team. If it happens to cost them way too much money, then that is the consequence of using that name. It is up to them to have to deal with it. If by your logic, then we should not have any sort of slander or libel lawsuits in this nation, right?

The government and courts can certainly bar the Redskins from using the name if enough clamor is made about it. It will no longer be a civil matter then, but also a criminal offense. I'm not taking a position of the issue, but it is possible.

[saevel25]

No.  Not right.

Libel is by definition a published false statement that is damaging to a person's reputation.

Slander is a false statement, usually made orally, which defames another person.

Both of those pertain to an individual and in the case of slander, require proof of damage.

Far different that a sports team name that has existed since 1932 and while perhaps offensive to some, has not damaged the reputation of any particular person.

So a hateful word is not damaging to a particular minority? Does not the general use of the term Redskin, make a hateful word OK to say, and as such causes damage to the minority group because it is making a word that has a hateful meaning popular to use? I think doing such a thing is condescending to the Native Americans by saying, "Oh don't mind it, we are using it for a football teams name, we don't mean anything bad by it". Yet that word has a deep significance towards a minority that caused them emotional harm.

The government and courts can certainly bar the Redskins from using the name if enough clamor is made about it. It will no longer be a civil matter then, but also a criminal offense. I'm not taking a position of the issue, but it is possible.

I disagree with this. I don't think it is a criminal matter. I purely think this lives in the realm of a civil court. I am not sure if it is criminal or not for let say a white boss to call a black employee the N word. So I don't think criminal courts would pertain to this.

[mmoan2]

So a hateful word is not damaging to a particular minority? Does not the general use of the term Redskin, make a hateful word OK to say, and as such causes damage to the minority group because it is making a word that has a hateful meaning popular to use? I think doing such a thing is condescending to the Native Americans by saying, "Oh don't mind it, we are using it for a football teams name, we don't mean anything bad by it". Yet that word has a deep significance towards a minority that caused them emotional harm.

He's not making a moral judgment about the use of the word Redskin; he's just pointing out that it's different by definition than libel or slander, which are ad hominem attacks.

[MS256]

The Washington Redskins were my favorite team when I was a kid, even though I had no connection to them whatsoever, and the name was the only reason. I didn't know a single person that looked at Redskins as a derogatory name. I looked up to Native Americans more than most people I knew and my grandmother was a Cherokee (of which I was very proud).

I have Native American artifacts all over my house because I look up to them as a people.

Somewhere along the way somebody decided the name was offensive but I can't buy that it was intended that way. Teams don't normally name themselves after things that they are not proud of in some way.

[mmoan2]

I disagree with this. I don't think it is a criminal matter. I purely think this lives in the realm of a civil court. I am not sure if it is criminal or not for let say a white boss to call a black employee the N word. So I don't think criminal courts would pertain to this.

Currently it probably is solely a civil matter. The courts can criminalize it. Not up on all the statutes. People can be charged with misdemeanor criminal offenses for exhibiting racial prejudice in the workplace. I used to work in HR.

[teamroper60]

So a hateful word is not damaging to a particular minority? Does not the general use of the term Redskin, make a hateful word OK to say, and as such causes damage to the minority group because it is making a word that has a hateful meaning popular to use? I think doing such a thing is condescending to the Native Americans by saying, "Oh don't mind it, we are using it for a football teams name, we don't mean anything bad by it". Yet that word has a deep significance towards a minority that caused them emotional harm.

Ok, I said I was done but you directed this quesiton at me, so I will answer it and then I really am done.

You brought up libel and slander.   Those are directed against an individual and for that individual to win, it will need to be shown that the individual has been personally damaged in some way.    A sports team name is not directed toward an individual and thus is far different that libel and slander.  One could argue that calling an individual a redskin might cause damage but using it in the generic sense of a sports team name is going to make it very hard (near impossible) to prove damage to an individual.

And as mmoan pointed out, my comments are not a statement about the moral issue of using the word redskin.    I have not really formed an opinion on that at this point (and yes, I have seen the commercial but have also seen much that contradicts the view of the NCAI).

[dsc123]

The Washington Redskins were my favorite team when I was a kid, even though I had no connection to them whatsoever, and the name was the only reason. I didn't know a single person that looked at Redskins as a derogatory name. I looked up to Native Americans more than most people I knew and my grandmother was a Cherokee (of which I was very proud). I have Native American artifacts all over my house because I look up to them as a people. Somewhere along the way somebody decided the name was offensive but I can't buy that it was intended that way. Teams don't normally name themselves after things that they are not proud of in some way.

I think that if you read up on the origin of the word you would see that it was originally used in a negative way. Some people may not find it offensive, but that doesn't mean the offensive interpretation is new. And it doesn't matter how the word was used in 1930. Many words were commonly used then that are now taboo. Also, no court can do anything about this. There is no civil liability. However, Congress could threaten to revoke the nfl's status as a nonprofit. Then the league would force Snyder to change it.

[newtogolf]

I don't like the connotations and innuendo associated with the names of these professional teams either so let's change them all, "Pirates, Raiders, Braves, Indians, Black Hawks, Red Hawks, Chiefs, Vikings, Warriors, Canucks and Yankees.  Thank you.

[iacas]

I don't like the connotations and innuendo associated with the names of these professional teams either so let's change them all, "Pirates, Raiders, Braves, Indians, Black Hawks, Red Hawks, Chiefs, Vikings, Warriors, Canucks and Yankees.  Thank you.

Not the same thing.

[newtogolf]

Not the same thing.

The PC police would disagree with you.  I didn't come up with these names on my own, these teams all show up in searches as teams that have their team name, logo or mascot under scrutiny by the PC police and will likely be targeted once the Redskins cave in to the pressure.

[iacas]

The PC police would disagree with you.  I didn't come up with these names on my own, these teams all show up in searches as teams that have their team name, logo or mascot under scrutiny by the PC police and will likely be targeted once the Redskins cave in to the pressure.

And they'd be wrong. They're not the same. "Redskins" is in a whole separate class.

[newtogolf]

And they'd be wrong. They're not the same. "Redskins" is in a whole separate class.

Okay so we have "levels" for what's offensive.  So if I agree with you (which I don't) that Redskins is "most offensive" do you really think the above imagery isn't offensive?

[dsc123]

Okay so we have "levels" for what's offensive.  So if I agree with you (which I don't) that Redskins is "most offensive" do you really think the above imagery isn't offensive?

Good examples! Almost as good as the foxnews article that actually disproved your point yesterday.

Atlanta hasn't used that logo in 15 years because its offensive.

Cleveland takes a lot of heat for that logo.  As @jamo mentioned earlier, they seem to be phasing it out, using a hat with a big C on it instead.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chief_Wahoo#Controversy