Given that the name is racist by definition... it probably wouldn’t pass the NCAA’s grounds for appeal....The link on "racist by definition" goes to the dictionary site merriam-webster.com. Even assuming you can claim to have established what something is "by definition," here's we see in that dictionary:
usually offensiveWell, that doesn't say "racist," it says "offensive," and if we follow the same "by definition" move and look up "offensive" at merriam-webster.com, we see that "offensive" means "causing someone to feel hurt, angry, or upset : rude or insulting," and "racist" is the adjective for "racism," which means "a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race." That is, "offensive" relates to the effect on others, the pain that is caused, and the reason for the pain is not specified. "Racist," by contrast. refers to the beliefs of a person, so if we're reasoning "by definition" using merriam-webster.com, "redskin" is not "by definition" "racist," since all we know "by definition" is that the word usually causes hurt feelings, not that it embodies a belief in the primacy of race as the determinant of the value of a human individual, which is what, "by definition," "racist" means.
: american indian
Now, I'm not saying you can't condemn the team name "Redskins" as racist. Go right ahead. Just spare me this half-assed reasoning with the dictionary. If you're going to make arguments based on dictionary definitions, show some skill. That was pathetic FiveThirtyEight! I can't check your statistical work so easily, but you dilute your credibility when you dip into the tlanguage game, at which many of us out here are quite adept.
This made me want to look up "redskin" in the Oxford English Dictionary (to which, you probably know by now, I cannot link). The OED's first definition — the second is about a potato — is "An American Indian. Now somewhat dated and freq. considered offensive." And "Early quots. are in the speech of American Indians." Here are those early quotations:
c1769 tr. Mosquito in Papers Sir W. Johnson (1931) VII. 137, I shall be pleased to have you come to speak to me yourself if you pity our women and our children; and, if any redskins [Fr. quelques peaux Rouges] do you harm, I shall be able to look out for you even at the peril of my life.Etymology:
1812 French Crow in J. C. A. Stagg et al. Papers J. Madison Presidential Ser. (2004) V. 182, I am a red-skin, but what I say is the truth.
1815 Black Thunder in Niles' Weekly Reg. 14 Oct. 113, I turn to all, red skins and white skins, and challenge an accusation against me.
< red adj. + skin n. In sense 1 after Mississippi Valley French Peau Rouge (c1769 in the passage translated in quot. c1769), itself apparently after Illinois *e·rante·wiroki·ta American Indian, lit. ‘person with red skin’ (compare nitarante·wiroki I am red, lit. ‘I have red skin’ (a1720 as nitarante8irouki)) and similar expressions in other American Indian languages of the region. With quot. 1815 at sense 1 compare (in the native language of the speaker) Meskwaki e·sa·winameška·ta American Indian, lit. ‘person who has brown skin’ (high-register, rare), †me·škwinameška·ta in the same sense, lit. ‘person who has red skin’, also wa·peškinameška·ta white person, lit. ‘person who has white skin’....So "red skin" comes from Native Americans themselves, who had words in their own language that translate to "red skin," and, if I'm reading this correctly, early Europeans were not perceiving a skin color that fit their conception of "red." Where, then, does the dictionary establish that the opinion of racial inferiority is embedded in the word "redskin"?
With more general references to the indigenous peoples of North America as red... compare similar uses in North American Indian languages of the south east (compare e.g. the phrases cited at red man n. 2); this contrasts with early European descriptions of the appearance of American Indians, which rarely use words meaning ‘red’. See further N. Shoemaker ‘How Indians got to be Red’ in Amer. Hist. Rev. 102 (1997) 625–44.
If we're wielding dictionaries and drawing conclusions with the declaration "by definition," the statement in the second-to-the-last paragraph of the FiveThirtyEight article is just embarrassingly bad.
Quite aside from how badly FiveThirtyEight did its argument by dictionary, argument by dictionary, even done well, has serious limitations. But that's another blog post... or book that I'll never write.
पोस्ट्स
६७ टिप्पण्या:
Clumsy word choice and citing a Buzzfeed article to prove that Natives are offended by the WA Redskins. Yep, that will do it. You're doing a bang up job 538.
And I wonder when Merriam Webster changed their definition to include usually offensive. Probably within the last year or two, I'd bet.
Oh just stop it. Racism is whatever we want it to be, right now at this very moment.
We don't care about dictionaries.
The past means nothing to us. We've decided to be offended about the name of a football team, and our wrath will not be diminished until this grievance is erased from the annals of history.
I find it somewhat humorous that Althouse who is both a product of, and a participant in the post modern system of higher education still clings to the antiquated notion of facts, and truth still have relavance in America.
We're way past that.
Whether a term is racist or not has a lot to do with the intent of the user. Blacks notably call each other "nigger" in informal speech. They are simply given the benefit of the doubt that their intent is not racist.
In this context, and given the history of the term, I don't think there's any doubt that "redskins" is not used by the football team with any racist intent. The whole idea of naming a football team is to denote an opponent that must be taken seriously. Should Norwegians object to "Vikings", or right-wingers to "Patriots"? Clearly, "Redskins" is honorific, and by most measures, that's how native Americans understand it.
By definition doesn't mean by definition, any more than racist means racist.
You're too ignorant to argue this point with, is what by definition means.
The argument wants to start past that point.
Wm. Kerrigan has a nice review ("The Neurotic's Dictionary") of Random House Webster's College Dictionary, in which the PC scoring (vulgar and offensive, etc) is scored.
Quiet. Too quiet.
The name is descriptive by definition (perhaps misleadingly so as you note the Europeans confusion). If it's a pejorative, that's not inherent in the word, but a conclusion/agreement by society.
I've been a reader (and sometime commenter) on Althouse for several years. I don't know a lot about law, and tend to skip the very exhaustive case reviews here (only because they get my head spinning). The political discussions are quite enjoyable, although I can usually follow along better when they are not Madison or Wisconsin-centric.
But what I enjoy the most (as someone who greatly misses William Safire) are Ann's language discussions. She has a great ability to pick up on instances where the language is twisted, contorted or simply inaccurate.
Just wanted to share.
Cowbogenous and Indigenous peoples are both represented in the NFL.
I defer to these words of wisdom from Mr. Steve Martin:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=INOeZnfUuIY
As far as the name goes, I think it's a fait acompli that Dan Snyder will eventually change the name. I think he would have a better argument to keep it if the 'Skins hadn't sucked such ass for the past decade.
But when he does, I hope he does one thing - once the name is changed don't shell out a single dime to any of the Native American groups that he presently donates (quite significantly) to. I know he currently does it to try and "buy" their approval, whether warranted or not. They will still have their hands out once they are the Washington Porkbarrels (or whatever they become) but I would tell them to go crap in their hats.
This reminds me of a similar situation I experienced on the meaning of words. I used to live in Liberia and the Liberian English word for a small child is pekin (pronounced pee-kin, with stress on the first syllable). That's the word they use in everyday conversation all the time. Or even in addressing a child, such as "Pekin, come here." I don't know that they have another word to replace it, expect perhaps "child", but I never heard that used that way.
After I got back home from Africa and Liberia, I was talking with a friend of mine who is black and mentioned that word and she thought it was offensive because ultimately it traces back to the same root (from Portugeuse) as pickaninny. It comes from the Portugeuse word for small and Portugeuse traders had brought it to the coast of West Africa hundreds of years ago. It was just a complete disconnect. To the Liberians it's a standard everyday word with absolutely no negative connotation. It's just about the only word they have for small child. So context means everything.
Well done Althouse.
I think someone might need to do some Voxsplaining to 538!
FiveThirtyEight lists "Orangemen" in the category of "Sports Team Names Referencing Native Americans" so apparently Scots-Irish are Native Americans.
Syracuse University has changed its nickname from Orangemen to Orange, but that was to excise the men.
A name change to The Washington Squaws would be good.
I have several books about Indian history wherein the authors state that they have asked about the terms "Native American" and "American Indian," and the responses unformly were that American Indian was the preferred term if you absolutely had to use a general term rather than the specific name of the nation or tribe involved, and "Native American" was disliked.
As for "redskin," the explanation I have read before is that there was a people of rather reddish hue in the Caribbean when the Spanish first arrived, and that this people went extinct, but the name stuck and became a general term, though not descriptive of other Indians.
I remember what marriage meant "by definition."
Also, "gay" by definition meant something else too.
The OED is not necessarily keeping up with the times or current definitions demanded by activists.
Words mean what we're told they mean by people with strong feelings.
I for one hate those mean and murderous Pinkskins...oops, that's my people.
It seems the PC crowd just means "insulting" when the use the term racist.
In the world of of Joan Rivers and The Three Stooges, Insult Art is the greatest talent.
Thanks, richlb.
I appreciate the encouragement!
Hagar,
Then there's this group which is not only happy to use the word 'Indian' in their official name, but also includes 'Tribe' in there. Is that self-racist or something?
"a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of the white race."
This revision is incomplete, to say the least, but to define racism without reference to whites is racist.
Most of these stirs about "racist" this or that originates with lily-white hyper-intellectual enclaves in university towns like Madison, WI, and not with the people that are supposed to be the ostensible victims of all this "racism."
FiveThirtyEight lists "Orangemen" in the category of "Sports Team Names Referencing Native Americans"
I didn't notice that. Utter ignorance.
There you go thinking again. The Progressive mind is not interested in thought processes. They are interested in demonizing people who are not like them - unless they are really, really not like them, in which case they are idealized as "the Other."
Crayola used to be the standard of indian color.
`I don't know what you mean by "glory,"' Alice said.
Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. `Of course you don't -- till I tell you. I meant "there's a nice knock-down argument for you!"'
`But "glory" doesn't mean "a nice knock-down argument,"' Alice objected.
`When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, `it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less.'
`The question is,' said Alice, `whether you can make words mean so many different things.'
`The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, `which is to be master - - that's all.'
And Viking basically means "pirate," so, yes, some of us Norwegians do get irritated about being called that, especially since the word is universally mis-pronounced.
The proper term for Norwegians prior to the 10th century is "Old Norse."
Hagar,
Wait... what? The 'Vikings' weren't pirates????
Poor reading comprehension there.
The term means "pirate" because that is what they did. Kind of like sea-going Apaches.
As a Native American, I remain unoffended. Wahoo McDaniels also does not offend. Iron Eyes Cody does not offend. I am not a wilting violet. I am not part of a racket who gets offended on command for money.
This is ridiculous.
Those that went inviking were vikings; those that did not, not.
Hagar said...
As for "redskin," the explanation I have read before is that there was a people of rather reddish hue in the Caribbean when the Spanish first arrived...
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/redskin
"Redskin is first recorded in the late 17th century and was applied to the Algonquian peoples generally, but specifically to the Delaware ... Redskin referred not to the natural skin color of the Delaware, but to their use of vermilion face paint and body paint."
Arrgghh!
The kin of pirates is still pirates, says I.
Well, if you are descended from any country ringing the North Atlantic, that will most likely make you one too, then.
Some random thoughts: African Americans are often referred to as "blacks." Offensive? And why not "black skins?" Hey, in the same vein, how about the Cincinnati Reds? What if they became the Cincinnati Blacks?
Hagar: but of course! (In my case, Swedish and Scottish from my mother's side; English and who-knows-what from my father's.)
Proud to be a descendant of pirates, colonialists, and distillers!
"In this context, and given the history of the term, I don't think there's any doubt that "redskins" is not used by the football team with any racist intent. The whole idea of naming a football team is to denote an opponent that must be taken seriously. Should Norwegians object to "Vikings", or right-wingers to "Patriots"? Clearly, "Redskins" is honorific, and by most measures, that's how native Americans understand it."
I agree and I think that should be obvious. We have people who have a need to feel superior, liberal sportswriters and some people who are willing to see themselves as victims, politically correct Natives. This was all ginned up by liberal sportswriters who are the most liberal people in our society.
As a longtime reader and first time poster I wanted to take this opportunity to apologize to that Crack guy for my Caucasian heritage, and am offering to send him a check for $1.73 if he will send me his snail mail address and assure me he will not refer to me as "whitey" at anytime in the future since I do have pigmentation (I am not albino) - albiet a different amount of it showing on the surface than he does. I do tend to darken fairly quickly with a lot of exposure to the sun though, so perhaps somewhere in the range of $1.56 would be more appropriate?
Also I would encourage any readers of this blog who have any Italian heritage to send me money (or at least profess your guilt) since my ancestry is European and I am sure I have some bloodline going back to a day when Romans were slave masters to my forebears.
I immediately wondered what Merriam-Webster says about "nigger" and it says the same thing: "usually offensive."
So by Althouse's reasoning here, "nigger" isn't by definition racist either.
And, let's face it, if "nigger" isn't, no word is. They could just make a lateral name change to the Washington Niggers.
If we learn nothing else from 8 years of Obama, lets hope we learn how important was Socrates's statement "If you would debate with me, first define your terms" .
Obama said "We tortured some folks.", and that is true only if your definition of torture includes water-boarding. For millions of us, it does not, so 'torture' can't then be used unless you first tell folks you subsume water-boarding under that concept, or if you are TRYING to mislead.
Obama said he wants to 'destroy' ISIS, but his use of the word 'destroy' is in the sense of: "two of my picks for the final four went out in the first round, so my brackets are 'destroyed' now. Millions of folks did not think of that wide definition when they heard him use the word regarding ISIS, so he again failed to define his terms, or was intentionally trying to mislead.
It is a general rule, regarding Progressives, that because their world view is SO naive and distorted, one must constantly insist that they define their terms. It makes for disjointed conversation flow, but the pursuit of truth surely is worth it, no?
I was all set to disagree with you, Hagar. I had always understood viking to mean "people of the fjord." Fortunately I checked my handy-dandy etymological dictionary and you are correct. "Viking", from Old Norse, "pirate" or "raider". The other definition is a nineteenth-century revision. So this question needs to be asked-- should pirates be offended by the use of the term "Viking"?
"We tortured some folks."
Calling terrorists "folks" is a way to humanize them, a lot of us considered that comment offensive and it reveals a lack of seriousness by Obama.
Obviously, the folks calling "Redskins" racist have just assumed that it is and don't much care for analysis of whether the accusation is correct.
Fine.
But to claim that a team's mascot was chosen as a racist term fundamentally misunderstands what the purpose of a mascot is.
I also was taught by my Scandinavian relatives that Viking meant "explorer" or something close to that. And that the Kings of England (William the Conqueror) and of Russia (Rurik) and the later Byzantine emperors (Porphyry?) were descended from these explorers who also actually discovered America (Vinland). And that the Vikings intermarried with the existing inhabitants of Vinland and their descendants fought against the French and the English who were also descended from the Vikings
And so there you see. The Redskins are actually the Vikings and could claim the name or at least claim that the "Viking" logo should resemble the current Redskin logo otherwise it will be offensive.
As to Obama and his comments, rumor has it, his latest comment about the beheadings is that he beheading to the golf course.
Warriors and Raiders reference Native Americans?
Moreover, if they are going to be pedantic, isn't the mascot the character representing the nickname?
My high school were the Tartans. I keep waiting for the Scotts to invade and put and end to it. (My oldest was a "Caveman", her three younger siblings were "Vikings." I hear both groups are livid.)
Levi Starks,
"The past means nothing to us."
There's whites whole problem with the world, right there,...
Well, wildswan, you are somewhat right about the Swedes or Rus of Kiev starting the Moscow principate, which probably explains a bit about the Muscovite governments being so grim, but otherwise you really need to read up on your Scandinavian ancestry!
It's "racist by definition" if you accept fabricated "definitions"* that assume it's racist.
(*I have in mind the celebrated folk definition of "my mom told me it meant scalps, so it totally does mean that even if nobody else ever thought that".)
Obama said he wants to 'destroy' ISIS, but his use of the word 'destroy' is in the sense of: "two of my picks for the final four went out in the first round, so my brackets are 'destroyed' now.
Now that's funny.
Maybe they'll keep the name, but change the mascot to a peanut.
The problem is the dictionary's treatment of racism and racist is irrelevant to how people like all Democratic operatives and Crack Emcee use those words
The effective definition of racist is vulnerable to demagogy.
If word 'redskin' is racist, then this football team is self-deprecating. lol
I thought for a minute that the easiest thing would be chop off the "skins," leaving "Reds",but Cincinnati might have a copyright, So what if they called it "Red Folks?" And what about Cleveland?
wildswan wrote: I also was taught by my Scandinavian relatives that Viking meant "explorer" or something close to that.
Actually no one knows what the term Viking meant. One of the earliest written instances of the word appears in Egil's Saga, recorded by Snorri Sturluson sometime prior to 1240 AD. It's in a bit of skaldic verse embedded in the text:
My mother once told me
She’d buy me a longship,
A handsome-oared vessel
To go sailing with Vikings:
To stand at the stern-post
And steer a fine warship,
Then head back for the harbor
And hew down some foemen.
Doesn't sound very "exploratory" to me.
Viking has been linked to the Old Norse vik, an inlet or estuary. The English cognate is creek. Hence, the thinking goes, a viking is dweller near a creek or inlet, just the place to ground a longship.
In modern times viking has become synonymous with the Scandinavian peoples of the early Middle Ages, a usage that is clearly not consistent with historical usage. To Christian Europeans they were northmen or Danes, regardless of where they hailed from.
Scholars have settled on a tentative definition: Viking is a profession or a practitioner of that profession. Viking is what you did in the summer between sowing your crops and harvesting them, assuming you could get a berth on a ship, which could be piracy or trade, usually both.
A typical viking expedition would beginning with a voyage to the eastern Baltic coast where captives would be obtained, either by raiding or trading. The captives would then be transported to other destination and sold. (This is the origin of the English word slave. Slave = Slav) Relieved of cargo the ship would then be sailed against any target of opportunity for plunder and sport.
As for the Rus, their identity is unclear. Many Russian scholars reject their identification with the Scandinavian Norse, while some Western authorities point to the typically Norse artifacts and the long-held traditions (Sagas and skaldic verse seem to be a blend of real information and imagination.) Among the few uncontested facts are these: Rus is not a Norse term. It's related to an Old Slavonic term which means rower or oarsman. Secondly, the Scandinavian Norse used a system of rivers and portages to travel between the Baltic and Constantinople. Whether they ruled the land between is an unsettled question.
There's the National Association For the Advancement Of Colored People. I KNOW "colored" is racist because there was almost a race riot in my basic training company (1969) when a young white guy said, of a Black drill sergeant, "That colored gentleman sure can count cadence!" The National Association For The Advancement Of Colored People gets away with it by calling themselves the NAACP, so I suggest that the Washington football team keep its name, but call itself the Washington RS.)
We white men are going to call them the Redskins 'cause we won (well, excepting for the Little Big Horn).
Look, I don't know about anyone else here who might’ve read my post above, but I feel like there's a little bit of tension in this thread (or at least there was before it got bumped down) and no one quite knows how to broach it, so I'm just going to give it a shot because unless it’s just me and maybe it is, it feels like someone should.
You know how when you look at a word long enough and you kinda don't know what it means anymore, or at least it loses some of its meaning? Well, at the very end of my post above, I just want to say that looking at that three-word combination on the page, at some point it made me laugh. Just the absurdity of it -- and then it wouldn't be funny anymore. But then it would hit me again. And it made me laugh probably eight times and I don't know if it's the double-g's in the middle... I'm sure the form of sports team names of city-name X followed by representive-noun Y lends itself to humorous combinations, with a taboo can't-laugh-in-church aspect in there as well and certainly Steven Pinker and John McWhorter could offer fascinating insights about this, but I definitely don't feel like thinking that hard about it and just wanted to put it out there. I’m not looking for corroboration; just some silent, unwritten thoughts, whether it be, “Okay! So it wasn’t just me who laughed at that,” or “Man, that guy’s a total racist hypocrite scold ass cactus,” is fine.
I lost the links, but I *read* the report that was done by the special expert for the PTO. This is from memory. Here is what I found:
1) The author repeatedly states that for something to be determined offensive, it doesn't have to be used pejoratively.
2) Nevertheless, the author gives a half-dozen or so examples of allegedly pejorative use of the term 'Redskin.' I say allegedly because the examples were somewhat questionable. One example was a newspaper editorial calling for the army to defeat the 'Redskins' in battle. An editorial during WW2 calling to defeat the 'Germans' in battle doesn't make German a pejorative term.
3) When was that editorial calling for the defeat of the 'Redskins' in battle published? As you probably guessed, it was at least 100 years ago. ALL of the examples cited by the paper were at least 70 or 80 years old (again, this is from memory). Which leads to:
4) You would think that if there were more recent examples, the author would cite them. Yet still
5) there has been a growth in the number of dictionaries that call 'Redskin' an offensive term and a commensurate growth in the number of people who think it is offensive. So now you must ask:
6) WHY was there a growth in belief that 'Redskin' is offensive and a growth in the number of dictionaries that call 'Redskin' offensive. The answer is clearly:
7) Leftist groups and organizations that have been working for decades to tell people that the use of the term "Redskin" is offensive. In other words, groups have been working for decades to paint people who use the term 'Redskin' as bigots. Why? Well, all groups that rely on donations want to point to successes to keep raising money.
This is an evil act-- painting people as bigots who are not, and forcing them to change their ways just so you can raise your status and get more funding. It should be actively opposed.
Vik means a bay or cove, and the upper end of the Oslo Fjord used to be known as "Viken," which caused some intellectual dofooses in the 19th century to think viking might be connected to that, which is nonsense since few vikings came from that rather benign agricultural area. Most came from the hardscrabble fjords on the south and west coasts.
Today viking is thought to derive from an Old Norse verb, viga, which meant something like to hunt, especially large and perhaps dangerous game. Vikings pretty much was a warrior caste and drawn from the mannr, i.e., the last people to invade the Scandinavian countries during the Migration Period. The people resident before this bunch arrived - and apparently a more peaceable group - are the ones we get the word bonde, meaning farmer, from. In English this has survived in the word "husband" from husbonde, meaning pater familias, or "master of the house(s)."
Thrall is the word that has survived in English from the Scandinavian word for slave. Slave and Slav are related as is serf and Serb, but they come to English from Latin and Norman French, not Old Norse.
Most Swedes and some Norwegians and Danes went in "Austrveg," that is they rowed up a river from the bottom of the Baltic and portaged over to a southflowing river and sailed on down to the Black Sea. "Rus" is supposed to come from a Finnish word meaning rower.
The Scandinavians had a settlement called Holmgard in or near the Russian town of Novgorod. This is today an archeological site and no "legend."
The names of some of the known people leading a "horde" coming down from the Ukraine to lay siege to Constantinople are clearly of Scandinavian origin, as are some of the Kievan "Rus" who founded the Moscow principate.
And King Harald Hardraada of 1066 fame started his adult career in the Varangian Guard in Constantinople. He is supposed to have risen to command it, which may be so. He certainly was one mean SOB.
The only viking mentioned in the sagas about Vinland (America, or mostly Canada's east coast) was a German named Styrkar in Leif Eiriksons's crew. All others were Greenlanders or Icelanders, and from the tone used about Styrkar, they did not mean viking as a compliment.
The high school I graduated from, Troy High School, in Fullerton, always gets caught up in this because for some reason, of which I had no idea, Aeneas, Priam, Hector and Paris were all American Indians.
Or the whole "article" from Five Thirty Eight is the usual shoddy journalism of numbers and clickbait that it and Vox has reduced real investigative reporting to.
Interesting analysis; very good read. One of those posts which simply stands without need for comment.
But of course we will; if to only say that it's a very good post.
This is one of the reasons to read Althouse. Some posts just for the hilarity of the comments, but others, like this, for what A. Althouse has to say.
There’s a lot of money to be made in the grievance industry. And thanks to the internet, the barriers to entry are very low. The challenge is how to monetize it. Getting a corporate sponsor like ESPN works for Nate Silver. The content is really not that important. It helps to have a prolific blogger, or many bloggers talking about your content because that gets you hits, which is translated to popularity, which translates to money when you are selling eyeballs.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा