Redskins

[ZooCougar]

They were actually very religious as a whole. The main point of contention was denominational control and the operative presumption was Christianity was the moral framework for a just and society of laws. There is no "separation of church and state" in the Constitutional concept. It is a prohibition against endorsement and a restriction against the restraint of free practice of one's religion. The notion that the public square should be sanitized of religion is simply not a concept that the framers endorsed. It is precisely the opposite. In fact in many states, the ability to qualify to hold office was statutorily defined to require a Christian faith. This seems crazy today, but not then. The idea was focused on the fact that any endorsement of a Christian denomination would result in oppressive government by the denomination in control. For example, Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists was an assurance that they would not be persecuted in Connecticut which was predominately controlled by Congregationalists. More generally, and I would have to find it, there is a reference to Mohammedism in the early writings that goes to the point being that each person is free to practice his or her religion, but the nation's laws and people are that of Christian nation and the Christianity is an essential aspect of public discourse and intercourse. It is not until the mid-1900s do you begin to see a re-interpretation of Constitutional underpinnings based on a (liberal) theory of positivism (which means you interpret the Constitution in accordance with the times). This concept was also expressly rejected by the framers in numerous writings notwithstanding the revisionist law professors at Harvard and Yale, etc.. What you see is actually a paradoxical erosion of our constitution rights under liberal interpretation due to several phenomena. But, I could write a book on that and bore you to death. Anyway, back to the main point, the modern liberal sentiments about the Constitution on the current subject are just vastly out of step with the reality of what was intended and was practiced for nearly 150 years. Sadly, most of what is taught even in college level classes is pure modern myth that was invented by "progressives" .

I don't agree with your overly simplistic explanation of legal positivism.

And Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists is often cited as evidence of his Deist tendencies.

He also refers to a wall between Church and State.

“[t]he First Amendment has erected a wall of separation between church and state. That wall must be kept high and impregnable.”


So this notion that there was never an intended separation is utterly false, unless of course you also believe that the earth is 6000 years old.

 

[Husky25]

I've always liked when sports teams took on the name of a specific tribe. Maybe it's due to my love for history, but I think that it's nice when a certain tribe's name is propelled through time, even if it is something as trivial as a sports team. The fighting Sioux, the Seminoles, the Chippewas.

So having said that, does anyone know what the historical tribe(s) in the DC area were? To me, that would be the best solution. Take that name, and keep the helmet. Even though I grew up hating the Redskins, they still have one of the coolest helmets in the business...

The Redskins started in Boston. They played at Braves Field and were originally called the Boston Braves. When they moved to Fenway Park, they changed their name to the Redskins, presumably to endear themselves to the Red Sox and keep the Indian moniker, but who knows for sure. George Preston Marshall was a bigot. It's documented history and maybe he choose Redskins as a racial taunt, but is that really what it means now? The only other owner of the Franchise besides Marshall and Snyder was Jack Kent Cooke and the only color he saw was green. He made and lost a ton of it.

I have been a Redskins fan for 32 years and the first time I was even exposed to the idea that the name was offensive were in the hours leading up to Super Bowl XVI (I have the game and 2 hours of the CBS pregame on VHS). That was January 1992 and I was 15. Since then, the only other time I heard the term "redskin" was in the movie Thunder Heart (Val Kilmer, Sam Sheppard) when one of the Tribesmen kept referring to Val Kilmer's FBI agent character as the Washington Redskin, because he had Indian blood.

My point is that the term is not used outside the context of the football team.

Full disclosure: I went to Algonquin Regional High School. I'm a Tomahawk and our mascot came under fire in the early 90's. While they changed the name of the school paper from The Smoke Signal to The Harbinger and removed the human mascot from the football games, the nickname stayed and the annual literary magazine is still called Sachem. The band even did the Tomahawk chop.

That said, I'll add Tomahawks to my approved team name list (Braves, Warriors). It's not a person. It's a tool. And a great headline on the Sports page (Tomahawks scalp Cowboys; Tomahawks chop down Giants; Tomahawks filet Eagles).

 

[BlueDogs]

Then why did Catholics creep into this country when they were hated by Protestants?

The Catholics were in the Baltimore, Maryland area. They came from Jesuit settlers settling from England (later they were persecuted and extradited back to England, but the Catholics in Maryland remained active and were tolerated) . Each state/area has its own its Christian flavor. Most of these groups came and took up various areas as the colonies were settled. In the earliest times, those reaching settling were under charter from one European power or another. Spain, a Catholic country, was a major world power and had influence on the founding of America with the colonies it ha set up as well. These were primarily in the deep south (Florida, Georgia) which they claimed as possessions. The French as well were Catholic and Catholics were present in America through their Canadian possessions (a large population was in present day Michigan). These were obviously contested by the British (I.e, French Indian War, The British wresting control of Florida from Spain, etc.). Catholics were just another flavor in a stew of Christian settlers many of whom were predominantly from protestant denominations which were under persecution by other dominant protestant denominations in Europe.

 

[BlueDogs]

I don't agree with your overly simplistic explanation of legal positivism.

And Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists is often cited as evidence of his Deist tendencies.

He also refers to a wall between Church and State.

“[t]he First Amendment has erected a wall of separation between church and state. That wall must be kept high and impregnable.”


So this notion that there was never an intended separation is utterly false, unless of course you also believe that the earth is 6000 years old.

It is not false. Read the letter in full and its intended context. And also read it in context of his other writings. This quote has been vastly abused. In fact, it was well known then and never came into use by the courts until relatively recently. Also, he alone is not the definitive word on this in any case. He is one of many framers.

Finally, legal positivism would require a book to discuss in full. I would maintain my thumbnail for the unacquainted is a fair portrayal. I had the dubious pleasure of having been subjected to the lecturing of one of the then leading Constitutional scholars in the 80s who was a disciple of positivism. But, it was quite obvious to me this whole line of reasoning was/is fundamentally unsound and fraught with error when you peel away the jurisprudential double speak.

 

[phillionaire]

After listening to that...I now know we are screwed as a country no matter what happens on this issue.

hell just reading some people's opinions on this let me know that we're screwed as a country. it's a football team name for god's sake. just change it.

 

[ZooCougar]

Read the letter in full and its intended context. And also read it in context of his other writings. This quote has been vastly abused. Also, he alone is not the definitive word on this in any case.

Not definitive, but it's about as close as you can get. The wall refers to the state not being able to infringe upon religious freedoms. It's more or less universally accepted.

 

[Husky25]

Anyway, back to the main point, the modern liberal sentiments about the Constitution on the current subject are just vastly out of step with the reality of what was intended and was practiced for nearly 150 years. Sadly, most of what is taught even in college level classes is pure modern myth that was invented by "progressives" .

Umm, The main point of this discussion is whether or not Daniel Snyder should be forced to change the nickname of an immensely popular American football team. If you really want to bring constitutional law into the discussion, then comment on the fact that Harry Reid is abusing his power as President of the Senate in an attempt to force Snyder's hand. I would think that Congress would have bigger fish to fry, seeing as they are the least productive group in the short history of this country. What would Jefferson say about that!?!?!

 

[BlueDogs]

Umm, The main point of this discussion is whether or not Daniel Snyder should be forced to change the nickname of an immensely popular American football team. If you really want to bring constitutional law into the discussion, then comment on the fact that Harry Reid is abusing his power as President of the Senate in an attempt to force Snyder's hand. I would think that Congress would have bigger fish to fry, seeing as they are the least productive group in the short history of this country. What would Jefferson say about that!?!?!

Dude. I'm happy to go back to football. These discussions lead nowhere. I would comment that we have real problems when the government can decide what is offensive and take away somebody's property (i.e., their intellectual property rights which had been secured legitimately over a long period). Everyday, we get closer to a banana republic (no offense to Latin Americans, Gorillas, or Banana lovers because I'm sure that phrase is derogatory too).

 

[Husky25]

hell just reading some people's opinions on this let me know that we're screwed as a country. it's a football team name for god's sake. just change it.

Why don't you change your name to ... Sidney or Irving [Manzarek]? It's just a word. - Jim Morrison, The Doors, 1991

As an American, I don't mind if the Redskins change their nickname, but it should be because they want to, not forced to by Congress or an agent of the State (I.e. the Patent Office). The fact that the Patent office is acting as the Moral arbiter of the country is all the proof you should need regarding how screwed up the country is. Have you seen some of the ridiculous things under patent?

As a fan of the team, I would really prefer they keep to a similar theme, if they do change the name.

 

[Husky25]

Dude. I'm happy to go back to football. These discussions lead nowhere. I would comment that we have real problems when the government can decide what is offensive and take away somebody's property (i.e., their intellectual property rights which had been secured legitimately over a long period). Everyday, we get closer to a banana republic (no offense to Latin Americans, Gorillas, or Banana lovers because I'm sure that phrase is derogatory too).

As you can see, I just commented on this before reading your post.

I'm commented on the World Cup board about playing a version of Monkey in the Middle and so far I am floored that no one has said anything about it being potentially derogatory (which it isn't).

 

[BlueDogs]

Not definitive, but it's about as close as you can get. The wall refers to the state not being able to infringe upon religious freedoms. It's more or less universally accepted.

That's the whole point. It is not universally accepted and was not until recently. The courts never used the phrase for the first 150 years over hundreds of relevant cases. Anyways, I suspect this argument cant be settled, so I'm out.

 

[BlueDogs]

As you can see, I just commented on this before reading your post.

I'm commented on the World Cup board about playing a version of Monkey in the Middle and so far I am floored that no one has said anything about it being potentially derogatory (which it isn't).

My view we are screwed big time as a country if we allow this thought police. The government is so entangled with everything we do, they have way too much power to control what we can say.

 

[Carl Spackler]

Boneyard has gone all lefty political correct. Yuk. ND can keep Fighting Irish, stereotype personified, 'cause that's okay because, well, you know.

This is basically what I'm thinking as I'm reading this discussion. Who gets to pick what's offensive and what's not? Majority opinion? I'm not so sure, it seems a good argument can be made that when something is found offensive to the point it needs to be changed - it's a minority opinion.

 

[Jimmy Serrano]

This is basically what I'm thinking as I'm reading this discussion. Who gets to pick what's offensive and what's not? Majority opinion? I'm not so sure, it seems a good argument can be made that when something is found offensive to the point it needs to be changed - it's a minority opinion.

Probably the same people who, despite the word being openly using in rap lyrics, decided that the word "n!&&er" is now the 8th dirty word that we can't use in discussion or on the airwaves. We have to say "the N word", which is just ridiculous.

 

[Carl Spackler]

Imagine you are part of a dying culture: the Native Americans. Yeah, the Europeans came over and basically took everything and raped the Earth and claimed it as theirs, great. Fine. You don't blame the current Americans -- they weren't even alive when any of this happened. You understand.

But your culture is so marginalized that even now, literally over 200 years later, they think so little of your culture, that they continue to use the mistaken name the racist who came over and "discovered" America used to describe your indigenous peoples. Even now, hundreds of years later, they insist upon their mistake: "No, no, really... you're Indians."

People cheer on the fact that Americans can't even be bothered to acknowledge that you are not, in fact, Indians, and that India is totally a separate culture with nothing to do with you and your people.

Native Americans in Connecticut seem to be doing pretty well for themselves. Gambling seems to be an effective way to get revenge on the white man - assuming that some kind of revenge is actually some kind of motive or something -

carry on

 

[EdgewoodNHV]

This is basically what I'm thinking as I'm reading this discussion. Who gets to pick what's offensive and what's not? Majority opinion? I'm not so sure, it seems a good argument can be made that when something is found offensive to the point it needs to be changed - it's a minority opinion.

For one, the Irish are not an ethnicity, they're a nationality. Secondly, the two issues are not related. The issue can't be, "Well we have to change all offensive names," because that is an outrageous undertaking. You have to take them one step at a time. It's like saying we shouldn't prosecute a murder because someone else got robbed.

In comparison, though, I would say that a purely racist, derogatory term towards Native Americans is slightly worse than the prejudiced, anti-Irish "Fighting Irish."

 

[EdgewoodNHV]

Native Americans in Connecticut seem to be doing pretty well for themselves. Gambling seems to be an effective way to get revenge on the white man - assuming that some kind of revenge is actually some kind of motive or something -

carry on

Yeah that totally makes up for the genocide and loss of sovereignty.

 

[EdgewoodNHV]

Probably the same people who, despite the word being openly using in rap lyrics, decided that the word "n!&&er" is now the 8th dirty word that we can't use in discussion or on the airwaves. We have to say "the N word", which is just ridiculous.

You have the freedom to say whatever you want. If I was your mother, I'd advise you not to use any particularly racist language, no matter what any rap artist is doing. Perhaps you should hold yourself to a higher standard than Ludacris?

 

[Carl Spackler]

Bill I hate political correctness as much as anyone but the name Redskin was used as a racial slur. This is why I hate when people unnecessarily play the race card or go way over the top PC. Because in legit cases of racism like this people's first instincts are to attribute it to the other nonsense. See Loop's response to my question about why Indians is offensive.

The responses, choices, courses of action that are available for people to take, if they feel 'marginalized, or oppressed, are very wide ranging in the USA. We don't live in a society where you get your tongue cut out if you choose to speak up, or something like that.

For me, it's just annoying - that if somebody is truly so offended by something like the logo to a sports franchise that has existed for so long, about such a wide ranging topic as racism for an entire population of people (native americans - which ones are really offended anyway? Pequots? Cherokee? Comanche? Pueblo? All of them - did they mobilize all together - I honestly don't know - I"ve been avoiding this topic until reading this thread.....it just seems to me, that if the motivation is there to do something based on such a deep, and meaningful reason as racial bigotry, and oppression - that attacking a sport logo as the focal point of change - is pretty pathetic. Find something better to do to effect change. My three cents.

 

[Carl Spackler]

Yeah that totally makes up for the genocide and loss of sovereignty.

This is exactly what I just wrote about. What the hell is this attitude.

Genocide and loss of sovereignty - HUGE problems. What to do about it? Get the Washington Redskins to change their logo.

Something doesn't seem proportional here - to me.

 

[Jimmy Serrano]

You have the freedom to say whatever you want. If I was your mother, I'd advise you not to use any particularly racist language, no matter what any rap artist is doing. Perhaps you should hold yourself to a higher standard than Ludacris?

You grossly misunderstood what I meant. For instance, when reporters wrote about Riley Cooper's rant last summer, they didn't use the word "n!&&er". They referred to it as the N word. Nobody on air will use the word even when they're quoting another person. As if saying "the N word" isn't as offensive as using the actual word? It's silly.

 

[phillionaire]

Why don't you change your name to ... Sidney or Irving [Manzarek]? It's just a word. - Jim Morrison, The Doors, 1991

As an American, I don't mind if the Redskins change their nickname, but it should be because they want to, not forced to by Congress or an agent of the State (I.e. the Patent Office). The fact that the Patent office is acting as the Moral arbiter of the country is all the proof you should need regarding how screwed up the country is. Have you seen some of the ridiculous things under patent?

As a fan of the team, I would really prefer they keep to a similar theme, if they do change the name.

They're not being forced to do anything. The patent office took away the protection of their trademark because it's a slur. The first amendment protects your freedom to use a slur, not to make a profit from it.

 

[Carl Spackler]

They were actually very religious as a whole. The main point of contention was denominational control and the operative presumption was Christianity was the moral framework for a just and society of laws. There is no "separation of church and state" in the Constitutional concept. It is a prohibition against endorsement and a restriction against the restraint of free practice of one's religion. The notion that the public square should be sanitized of religion is simply not a concept that the framers endorsed. It is precisely the opposite. In fact in many states, the ability to qualify to hold office was statutorily defined to require a Christian faith. This seems crazy today, but not then. The idea was focused on the fact that any endorsement of a Christian denomination would result in oppressive government by the denomination in control. For example, Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists was an assurance that they would not be persecuted in Connecticut which was predominately controlled by Congregationalists. More generally, and I would have to find it, there is a reference to Mohammedism in the early writings that goes to the point being that each person is free to practice his or her religion, but the nation's laws and people are that of Christian nation and the Christianity is an essential aspect of public discourse and intercourse. It is not until the mid-1900s do you begin to see a re-interpretation of Constitutional underpinnings based on a (liberal) theory of positivism (which means you interpret the Constitution in accordance with the times). This concept was also expressly rejected by the framers in numerous writings notwithstanding the revisionist law professors at Harvard and Yale, etc.. What you see is actually a paradoxical erosion of our constitution rights under liberal interpretation due to several phenomena. But, I could write a book on that and bore you to death. Anyway, back to the main point, the modern liberal sentiments about the Constitution on the current subject are just vastly out of step with the reality of what was intended and was practiced for nearly 150 years. Sadly, most of what is taught even in college level classes is pure modern myth that was invented by "progressives" .

I put the writings and teachings of Frank Zappa up against most anything taught in college these days.

 

[HuskyHawk]

Yeah that totally makes up for the genocide and loss of sovereignty.

None of us committed the genocide. It's over. It's done. No, it was not nice. There are hundreds of other such examples throughout history, from every corner of the globe. It is not for later generations to "make up for" the errors of their ancestors, that concept is ridiculous. I also reject the concept of race and creed, it is meaningless nonsense. We are each people, answerable only for our own actions and for no others. Hopefully we judge others the same way, based on who they are what they do.

As for the name, I consider it somewhat tasteless. But I also think that everyone who fancies himself or herself as a part of some arbitrary and non-existent "group" to get over this "I'm offended" crap. Being offended or not, is up to you. Meanwhile the trademark office has pulled this stunt once before with the Redskins and it was overturned. This isn't new.

 

[Husky25]

Yeah that totally makes up for the genocide and loss of sovereignty.

And Manhattan. Don't forget Manhattan.