Redskins Name Controversy
Debate Rounds (3)
I accept this debate.
I will attempt to show how the name "Redskins" is a racial sur and therefore should not be the tolerated as a NFL team name.
https://m.youtube.com... (watch this video for proof)
Round 2: Argument
If we are to analyze whether or not a certain word is a slur and therefore unfit to be the name of a professional sports team, we must know more about the history of the word. It is somewhat disputed amongst historians as of where the term "Redskin" began. The earliest use of the slur was found in a letter written by an English colonialist in 1699, where he writes about how the colonists had to "...withstande ye wicked onsaults of ye Red Skins" . This, while somewhat interesting, is irrelevant given the fact that the term was only used most often in the 18th and 19th centuries.
Originally the name "Redskin" was a sign of respect, as described by Smithsonian Institution senior linguistic Ives Goddard when he wrote that "[w]hen it first appeared as an English expression in the early 1800s, it came in the most respectful context and at the highest level . . . These are white people and Indians talking together, with the white people trying to ingratiate themselves" . However the word went through a process called pejoration (evolving from a good to bad word), as proved by a linguistics study. this study analyzed forty-two books published between 1875 and 1930 and showed that the term "Redskin" was much more frequently used in a negative context than a positive one .
Native American activist Amanda Blackhorse described that "The name itself actually dates back, you know, at the time when the Native American population was being exterminated, and bounty hunters were hired to kill Native American people. And so, you know, one could make a great living off of just killing Native American people. And there was a tier effect that was paid out. You know, the highest paid was for a Native American man and then a woman and then a child. And so, based off of that, there were news clippings and flyers and stuff that were posted up, asking people to go out to kill Indians and bring back the red skin. So, in order to show that they made their kill, they had to bring back a scalp or their skin. And so, that’s where the 'Redskin' word has been kind of passed down. So, in our community, we do not use that word" . This quote clearly shows that the term "Redskin" clearly has a negative context and therefore should be considered a racial slur.
If the term "Redskin" is to be considered a racial slur, and I have shown that it clearly deserves to be considered one, why should it be allowed to be the name of a profesional sports team? Based on the history of the word, naming a sports team the "Redskins" is equally as offensive as calling a sports team the "N-----s".
Second, It can"t be that people have been more sensitive about offending blacks than Indians. Back when many sports teams were given their nicknames, nobody would have guessed that a racial slur would one day be censored as "the N-word." The football team previously known as the Boston Redskins was christened in 1933, back when cartoons, radio shows and other pop media were totally unrestrained in their willingness to denigrate black people. There was obviously no stigma against racism toward blacks in those days, so why wouldn"t somebody have named his sports team "the N-word"?
Because it"s an insult, that"s why. A sports team does not select a nickname for the purpose of adopting its negative connotations. Yet the politically correct wonks at the U.S. patent office, when they called the Redskins name "disparaging," must have believed that the football team meant to disparage itself.
The debate ought to end right there. If anyone questions whether the Redskins name is "hostile and abusive" , the immediate answer should be that it must not be, otherwise the team would never have adopted the nickname. No team owner is going to name his team something he views disrespectfully.
Round 3: Rebuttals
Even if not everybody feels that a term is not offensive does not mean that that term is not offensive. The reason why such a large portion of Native Americans do not feel that the term "Redskin" is offensive is because they have assimilated into the American culture. This, however, does not take away from the fact that the term Redskin is extremely offensive, as I have shown in my previous argument.
While I do not know if this is against the rules of the debate, and as they have not been stated I will assume that I am not, I will proceed to rebut my opponents round 3 rebuttals. I understand my opponents point that people view the terms "Redskin" and "Negro" as two very different words, with the former being less offensive and the ladder being extremely offensive in society's eyes. However, it is important not to believe that everything society believes is right. Given the history of the word "Redskin" it is very fair to assume that it is equally offensive as the N-word. For example, both terms were used in the terms of murder (Redskin used when a bounty hunter killed/scalp a Native American and the N-word used when a black man/woman was being lynched). Obviously these are not the only scenarios where the word is used however these are the two worst examples, and each are equally horrific.
Knowing that not everything society knows (or doesn't know) is necessarily correct, we move onto the next argument that the owner of the team would not chose the name "Redskins" if he had intended for it to be offensive. The reason for why the owner made this decision is not because he thought that the name was not offensive, but because he did not, and still does not understand the history behind the term that makes it so offensive.
On a side note, thanks for the quick and fun debate!
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by dynamicduodebaters 2 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||3|
Reasons for voting decision: He provided a more persuasive argument.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.