The cause of doing away with the name “Washington Redskins”, primarily the “Redskins” part, became a Big Issue for liberals, a cause celebre, because someone told them that the Redskins name was mean and evil and racist and bigoted and stuff. So, for months and months they worked to do away with the name “Redskins”, including petitioning to have a radio station license pulled
(The Hill) The Federal Communications Commission on Thursday ruled the name “Redskins” is not profane or obscene.
In a formal ruling, the commission rejected calls to yank the broadcast license of a radio station owned by Washington Redskins owner Dan Snyder for excessively using the team’s name, which some find offensive.
George Washington University professor John Banzhaf filed a petition in September opposing the license renewal of the D.C. station, WWXX-FM.
To be obscene, it must related to something related to sexual conduct. To be profane, per the FCC’s definition, it must be “words that are sexual or excretory in nature.” Looks like someone should have actually read the FCC’s definitions prior to filing the petition.
The commission cited the First Amendment, saying it does not withhold licenses based on a subjective view of what is appropriate programming.
It noted that some racial or religious slurs are offensive to many, but it has previously declined “extending the bounds of profanity to reach such language given constitutional considerations.”
“Indeed, the Commission has held that ‘if there is to be free speech, it must be free for speech that we abhor and hate as well as for speech that we find tolerable and congenial,'” according to the commission.
Banzhaf whine to the FCC in his petition about “hate speech” and using the name is “fighting words”. Here’s an idea leftists give to righties who do not like certain TV programs: change the channel. I find MSNBC to be hate speech…ok, really, I find it to be silly and idiotic…so I do not watch it.
Liberals are all for Free Speech, as long as it is Free Speech they agree with.
Personally, I think they should do away with the Redskins name and call the the Washington Papooses, based on their play and record during the Daniel Snyder era. Oh, and because I despise the Redskins, being a Giants fan.
Crossed at Right Wing News.
Wteach would you call an American Indian a redskin to his face ?
Is this a term you would choose to use directly to a customer ?
[…] Pirate’s Cove […]
That’s an interesting question, John. Of course, liberals call folks on the Right really nasty things all the time. Will you refrain from doing that?
John-_What somebody will or will not due is entirely irrelevant to the topic.
John’s question is quite relevant to establishing whether Redskin is an insulting term. It is clearly a racial slur.
Sorry, J, still irrelevant as redskin is not a racial slur. “Establishing whether redskin is an insulting term. It clearly is a racial slur. “Whether” means it could go either way. Which is contradictory to “is” a racial slur. First you say it could be, then you say it is. Also, if John’s question is “quite relevant to establishing whether it’s an insulting term” then Teach’s answer would also be quite relevant. What do you think his answer would be?
j,
Native Americans disagree with Teabaggers over the R word.
I suspect that Mr. Teach, even though he’s a Teabagger, would not refer to Native Americans as Redskins to their face. Why? Because it’s a slur.
Are you implying that you would call a Native American a Redskin in public? I understand that Teabaggers use a variety of slurs for other groups when amongst their own kind, but most are polite enough to keep it private.
So john and Jeffery are up in arms about a team name allegedly being offensive yet have no issues calling other “Teabaggers,” which is an offensive and derogatory term.
That was kind of my point. “Redskins” and “Teabagger” are offensive to those at which the terms are directed. Words matter.
Do you like being referred to as a Teabagger? Would you support “Redskins” being changed to “Teabaggers” caricatured by a spitting, wild-eyed, fat, old, white man with missing teeth, cigarette hanging off his lip, wearing a tri-cornered hat with tea bags hanging, wearing a Gadsden flag wifebeater shirt, holding an AR-15 in one hand and a beer in the other? Tennessee Teabaggers has a nice ring.
How about the Seattle Southerners? The Honolulu Honkies? The Washington Whities? The Connecticut Conservatives? The New York Cops? The Rhode Island Rednecks? The Raleigh Right-Wingers. The Redmond Republicans. The caricatures almost draw themselves.
If not, why would you support that same kind of caricature of Native Americans?
In all seriousness, please try to understand the difference in social and political power between a ruling class (white conservatives) ridiculing and caricaturing a dominated and oppressed minority (Native Americans). You might get a laugh out of the “Whities” because your tribe is in charge, but Native Americans see “Redskins” as another poke with a stick.
European whites invaded North America and killed and displaced the indigenous peoples and cultures, rounding them up and putting them in camps (reservations). We could try to display just a little class and stop making fun of them.
That was kind of my point. “Redskins” and “Teabagger” are offensive to those at which the terms are directed. Words matter.
Do you like being referred to as a Teabagger? Would you support “Redskins” being changed to “Teabaggers” caricatured by a spitting, wild-eyed, fat, old, white man with missing teeth, cigarette hanging off his lip, wearing a tri-cornered hat with tea bags hanging, wearing a Gadsden flag wifebeater shirt, holding an AR-15 in one hand and a beer in the other? Tennessee Teabaggers has a nice ring.
How about the Seattle Southerners? The Honolulu Honkies? The Washington Whities? The Connecticut Conservatives? The New York Cops? The Rhode Island Rednecks? The Raleigh Right-Wingers. The Redmond Republicans. The caricatures almost draw themselves.
If not, why would you support that same kind of caricature of Native Americans?
In all seriousness, please try to understand the difference in social and political power between a ruling class (white conservatives) ridiculing and caricaturing a dominated and oppressed minority (Native Americans). You might get a laugh out of the “Whities” because your tribe is in charge, but Native Americans see “Redskins” as another poke with a stick.
European whites invaded North America and killed and displaced the indigenous peoples and cultures, rounding them up and putting them in camps (reservations). We could try to display just a little class and stop making fun of them.
That was kind of my point. “Redskins†and “Teabagger†are offensive to those at which the terms are directed. Words matter.
As usual, you failed.
Your point would have been made better if you had not used the term in a derogatory manner previously.
Your point would have been made better if, like the team name, “Teabagger” was ever used in a positive manner. It has not been, so your point makes no sense.
The fact of the matter is that no one names a team to offend anyone or project a negative image. The term and the image “Redskins” in portraying a football team was always meant to be a compliment and to embody the best of the warrior spirit.
However, in the world where the perpetually offended never worry about their actions and thrive in trying to offend others, such distinctions are lost on people like you.
In the end, all you have is the desire to tell what people to do and your hypocrisy.
gq,
You’re offside on your history. Teabagger and Teabagging came from the Tea Partiers. It was pointed out to them that they had adopted a name of a sex act and they took offense. Don’t feel bad, I had not heard of Teabagging before the Tea Party either.
Do you feel demeaned when Tea Partiers are referred to as Teabaggers? Does it trivialize the hard work, dedication and patriotism of the Tea Party minority when called Teabaggers by dominant liberal elites?
Can you think of other examples where oppressed minorities were “honored” by being made mascots of sports teams?
Of course the Washington R-words organization did not intend to offend Native Americans when they formulated the team name. At the time it wouldn’t have occurred to wealthy whites to be concerned about the feelings of Native Americans. In addition, the lore is they changed the name from Boston Braves to Boston Redskins to take advantage of a linkage to the popular Red Sox.
Good grief, you’re a fool. One who lives in a fantasy world and just makes things up.
I do get get a kick out of the vitriol and insults casually thrown around by Lefties, who always proudly proclaim that are super civil and no compassionate and caring and the adults in the room and intellectual superiors. They constantly prove themselves wrong.
Teach,
With conservatives, it’s always projection.
Sure thing, sparky. Keep deluding yourself.
Nice try, but that assertion is without factual support.
Not at all. What I feel is pity for people like you who cannot make cognitive arguments so you resort to name calling. What I pity are people like you who demand certain acts from others and yet will not abide by the very rules you want others to be compelled to follow.
There are times when I actually pity hypocrites like you who often act without morals or consistency.
Oppressed minorities?
Wow.
Such delusion in your word.
By the way, how do you feel about the name “Fighting Irish?”
So you are saying that the coach and the native American team members were too stupid to know the team name was an insult when the name was changed?
How nice it is that we have rich white liberals looking out for those who they think are too stupid to understand issues like liberals can.
That is a lie.
You don’t think that Native Americans are an oppressed minority? Wow.
That would be relevant if the coach and players had made the name change. Eighty years ago, would you expect Native American players to protest the name change, or shut up and play? Why do you (and conservatives in general) always assume oppressed peoples are stupid?
In the same vein, conservatives also claim that Black Americans are too stupid to vote in their own interest. And how would white society have rewarded a Black person for complaining about being called nigger or boy by conservatives back in the 30s? A beating? A lynching?
Why do you call those Native Americans (or as you call them, redskins) that protest the name today “chronically offended”?