This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.
You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jun/19/washington-redskins-history-slur-team-name
The article has changed 3 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
| Version 0 | Version 1 |
|---|---|
| Washington Redskins apologists are on every wrong side of history – and a slur | Washington Redskins apologists are on every wrong side of history – and a slur |
| (2 months later) | |
| On Wednesday, the US Patent Office decided that the word "Redskins" is officially offensive and cannot be trademarked. The howls of the poor, put-upon, downtrodden (and mostly white) fans of Washington's football team will undoubtedly come out in force. | On Wednesday, the US Patent Office decided that the word "Redskins" is officially offensive and cannot be trademarked. The howls of the poor, put-upon, downtrodden (and mostly white) fans of Washington's football team will undoubtedly come out in force. |
| Setting aside the likely incoming legal battle between Dan "I Sell Expired Airline Peanuts to My Fans" Snyder (at the end of which another court will likely overturn the case, like the last time the US government acknowledged the name was offensive, back in '92), the ruling is a great sweeping kick in the nuts to the traditionalists who still insist that saying "Redskins" out loud – and plastering it all over millions in apparel and marketing – isn't a slur. | Setting aside the likely incoming legal battle between Dan "I Sell Expired Airline Peanuts to My Fans" Snyder (at the end of which another court will likely overturn the case, like the last time the US government acknowledged the name was offensive, back in '92), the ruling is a great sweeping kick in the nuts to the traditionalists who still insist that saying "Redskins" out loud – and plastering it all over millions in apparel and marketing – isn't a slur. |
| I find these people hilarious, because I doubt any of them would walk up to a Native American and call her a "redskin" to her face, despite the slur's defenders insisting that it's a word of pride. | I find these people hilarious, because I doubt any of them would walk up to a Native American and call her a "redskin" to her face, despite the slur's defenders insisting that it's a word of pride. |
| Yet some apologists like to use the argument that "Redskins" was once a term of endearment to honor proud Native Americans. These folks might be a little ignorant of the history being cited. | Yet some apologists like to use the argument that "Redskins" was once a term of endearment to honor proud Native Americans. These folks might be a little ignorant of the history being cited. |
| The owner of the team who changed the name to "the Redskins", George Preston Marshall, was such a notorious racist that he refused to allow black players on his team until 15 years after the ban on their participation was lifted. There is alsothe suggestion that he may have been the driving force to ban them in the first place. After all this I have difficulty believing Marshall chose the name "Redskins" to honor another put-upon minority population. | |
| And if you claim to be such a football historian that you can repeat the claim that the team was named as such to honor supposedly Native American coach William "Lone Star" Dietz, well, the man may not have even been Native American at all. By the way, Dietz may not even be a factor, because a newspaper clipping from the era quotes Marshall as saying he did not name the team to honor Dietz. | And if you claim to be such a football historian that you can repeat the claim that the team was named as such to honor supposedly Native American coach William "Lone Star" Dietz, well, the man may not have even been Native American at all. By the way, Dietz may not even be a factor, because a newspaper clipping from the era quotes Marshall as saying he did not name the team to honor Dietz. |
| But even if the name was meant to honor Native Americans – and maybe at one point it was – the reality is that the rest of us have moved on. We have abandoned the term – in fact, America has been slowly abandoning it for decades. The people who insist on clinging to it – even those Native Americans who, according to Dan Synder's magical polls, still like the term – are clinging to a controversy that isn't going away. | |
| It's not a matter of whether the Washington football team's name will get changed, but when. | It's not a matter of whether the Washington football team's name will get changed, but when. |
| Because language, it turns out, is not immutable. Society changes, people mature, and what a word might mean today changes tomorrow. Whatever it might have once meant – and there are plenty of good arguments that it was never any sort of honor – "Redskins" is now a slur, regardless of interpretations back in the '30s, which wasn't exactly the most racially accepting period in American history. | Because language, it turns out, is not immutable. Society changes, people mature, and what a word might mean today changes tomorrow. Whatever it might have once meant – and there are plenty of good arguments that it was never any sort of honor – "Redskins" is now a slur, regardless of interpretations back in the '30s, which wasn't exactly the most racially accepting period in American history. |
| Think about it: who uses the term "Redskins" to refer to anything or anyone but the football team? Do you hang out with people who walk around talking about the "Redskin reservations" or "Redskin casinos"? No one uses this term in conversation casually about anything other than the Washington football team, because it’s viewed as racist to many people. So why is it okay to make it the name of a major sports team? All those in favor of the word only see the name as that of a football team. In that tunnel vision, the word is fine. But the word has real meaning outside of football. Hurtful meaning. Most people, they aren't thinking about the bad connotations. They are only thinking football, so to many loyal fans, this is tradition that deserves to be preserved. But context matters. And the context here, whether you like it or not, is that this word is offensive. | |
| This has been a decades-long fight. It has offended people since that word came to be the name of the team, and it has steadily offended more and more people over time. Why would you still want to offend people – and why would you want the owner of your favorite team to offend them, too? It's bad for the team, it's bad for business, and it's bad for you: Snyder at least has a rooting interest to support the name, because he makes loads of money off of it. | This has been a decades-long fight. It has offended people since that word came to be the name of the team, and it has steadily offended more and more people over time. Why would you still want to offend people – and why would you want the owner of your favorite team to offend them, too? It's bad for the team, it's bad for business, and it's bad for you: Snyder at least has a rooting interest to support the name, because he makes loads of money off of it. |
| Redskins fans don't stand to make a dime, so what's your excuse? | Redskins fans don't stand to make a dime, so what's your excuse? |