Comments on: Calling Out Names

By: MarkV

MarkV — Sat, 30 May 2009 03:57:15 +0000

Eric, Native Americans were referred to as Warriors, Redskins, Braves, and Indians. Native Americans is a 1960s term. So naming them after a popular reference of what they were called at the time of their formation is not racist. Your assumption that the title was insulting back then has no historically factual basis. We also do not know Marshall’s mindset to know or say why he named the team ‘Redskins.’ Maybe he liked potatoes but he thought it would be stupid with his team running around with symbols of potatoes.

The reality is that we do not know, and admitting that along with the other possibilities is being honest. The fact that those were popular names for Native Americans at the time and that he picked one of those contemporary names does not make him or his motives racist. When there are two ways to take a topic and you only pick the worst possible scenario — That is ‘intellectual dishonesty.’ No one needs to read a book on anyone to understand that in a logical argument where there are two possibilities and you chose the worst, that it is unfair and dishonest. So just because someone was a bigot means that everything this person did in his life was done with malice? Of course not, but that is what you are doing. He had views on one thing therefore he did something else with the same exact reasons, that is another example of ‘intellectual dishonesty.’

In ANY discussion, if you take any one fact and smear it across any spectrum without pretense, it is dishonest. Using facts to support your smear is ‘intellectual dishonesty.’

Then by your example of him growing up in a time of sexist and racists, I guess everyone was. Even Branch Rickey. Or is everything that Rickey did perfect because he did one famous thing right? Rubbish!

By: Eric

Eric — Fri, 29 May 2009 19:58:17 +0000

MarkV. I hear you loud and clear. But why not name the team ‘Warriors’ or ‘tomahawks’ rather then a direct reference to one’s skin color? If the Cavaliers were renamed the Lebron’s in the midst of a losing season that would be a bit insulting, especially if Lebrons real name was Ezekiel.

“The reality is that people in the 30s just were not as overtly sensitive as people are today.”

They were also overtly sexists and racists as well. Women were barely allowed to vote (1920 was the year)and Jim Crow laws were predominant. I suggest reading up on George Preston Marshall a little bit more before saying it is “intellectually dishonest” to accuse him of such an act

By: MarkV

MarkV — Fri, 29 May 2009 07:51:07 +0000

I agree with Noah. None of us would call our team the ‘Jew Haters’. And if we did, no one would rally around us, buy our merchandise, or come to our games. The whole ‘I named my team after hatred of a group’ thing is intellectually insulting — no matter his personal preferences. Chicago did not name their team the ‘Bears’ to signify themselves as a bunch of pansies. Denver could have easily called themselves the Horses, but ‘Broncos’ are a much more powerful signification of a horse. Some team names were significant to the areas of origin and others were to signify toughness. Native Americans were not known as the ‘American Frontier Flower Children’ of their era. They were fierce and formidable warriors, who without technology, were equal on some fields to their European counterparts. If the Cleveland Cavaliers where renamed to be the ‘LeBrons,’ should he take that as an insult or compliment? If the owner did it because he hated LeBron, would that matter? Wouldn’t we all still see that as a huge compliment? The reality is that people in the 30s just were not as overtly sensitive as people are today. I guess it makes for good blog material, but in reality it is intellectually dishonest. It is also decades after Marshall’s death so it is extremely unfair to smear someone posthumously who cannot defend themselves.

By: Eric

Eric — Fri, 29 May 2009 05:48:01 +0000

Dietz wasn’t even Native American. Even if he was why call the team “Redskin” which is derogatory.

On the flip side, the People filing the complaint did have over 50 years to decide the team name was offensive.

By: Noah

Noah — Fri, 29 May 2009 03:00:09 +0000

Why is it that I am the only one that seems to realize that a racist wouldnt name his team after someone he was racist against, even if it was a slur. He would want them to have anything to do with it.

And though he was racist against blacks, that also doesnt mean he was racist against Native Americans or Asians, or Hispanic.

The fact of the matter is, the majority of Native Americans according to polls that have been performed indicate that they do not find the name offensive. In fact many like the name.