I emphasize to every class I teach that the range of possible explanations for any phenomenon is far larger than the range of plausible explanations — and the range of plausible explanations is larger than the number of genuinely compelling explanations.
For example, in the early 19th century, human population began to soar upward at a sustained trend never before observed in history. One possible explanation for this faster population growth is that about 200 years ago people became more interested in sex. Having more sex, they had more children. Having more children means higher population. QED.
Of course, this possible explanation isn’t at all plausible, much less compelling. So we reject it outright.
The largeness of the range of possible explanations for observed phenomena is fertile ground not only for genuine disagreement among people of integrity, but also for people who aren’t so much seeking truth as they are seeking to score political points or moral-grandstanding points.
All sorts of examples come to mind. One is the insistence by many folks that today’s falling gasoline prices are caused by GOP-friendly oil producers who want to increase the chances that the GOP will keep control of Congress with the November elections.
Now I suppose that some people are so dim-witted as really to find merit in this explanation, but surely anyone with any sense at all dismisses this explanation as implausible in light of well-known facts about the world (for example, fewer hurricanes this year than predicted; an end, at least temporarily, to the war between Israel and Lebanon) sifted through even just an intuitive grasp of basic supply-and-demand analysis.
One of the silliest and, at the same time, potentially very divisive instances in which people (willfully?) adopt an implausible explanation for an observed phenomenon involves names for certain sports teams in the U.S.
There’s an on-going debate in Washington, D.C., over the name of that city’s professional (American) football team: The Washington Redskins. (The Washington Post wants the team’s name changed, arguing that it’s a racial slur that demeans Native Americans.)
Yes, a possible explanation for this team’s name is that it was adopted to insult Native Americans. But how plausible is this explanation? I find it ludicrous. Sports teams, and their fans, want names that make them proud. Can you imagine a sports team even (or especially!) in the early 20th century taking the nickname "Niggers" or "Kikes" or "Homos"? These are awful slurs, thankfully less commonly used today than in the past, aimed at dismissing and demeaning a group of people simply because they are black, Jewish, or homosexual.
If you can’t imagine (and I certainly can’t) any team owner 80 years ago saying, "Hey, you know what? Blacks are so looked down on, so much fun to spoof and make fun of and to demean with insulting names, that we’ll name our team the ‘Niggers.’ That’ll really bring in the fans!" — then why imagine that the name "Redskins" was adopted for a similar reason?
The far-more plausible explanation for the choice of the Redskins name was that it was believed that that name would be one that owners, players, and especially fans would take pride in.
Other facts support this more-plausible explanation. The Redskins’ emblem does not depict a weak or a stupid or a barbaric Native American.
More significantly, in my view, is the fact that other sports teams have names obviously designed to foster pride. Should ranch-hands today be insulted by the name of the Dallas Cowboys? Gold-miners insulted by the name of the San Francisco 49ers? Steelworkers insulted by the name of the Pittsburgh Steelers? Meatpackers insulted by the name of the Green Bay Packers? Texans insulted by the name of the Houston Texans? Northerners insulted by the name of the New York Yankees? Sailors insulted by the name of the Seattle Mariners? Greeks insulted by the name of the Michigan State Spartans? Descendants of 19th-century industrialists insulted by the name of the Vanderbilt Commodores?
Should I be insulted by the name of the University of Louisiana Ragin’ Cajuns?
Of course not. So to continue to insist that "Redskins" is insulting is either not to think about the issue sensibly or to be so intent on finding racism that you find it even when it doesn’t exist.
Share
{ 28 comments }
Great Post!
I agree whole-heartedly, and reach the same conclusion. And many Indians (who tend to prefer "Indian" to "Native American") were proud of many teams that had "racial slurs" about them in the title at colleges, which have since been forced to change.
As to the broader point, I think that there are quite a few big figures in "interest group" politics and activism that do intentionally interpret things via the least likely but most advantageous explanation, but then most of their followers tend to be so *ignorant* of the world that they actually beleive it. I would not call it dim-witted, nor do they ignore information so much as simply not know about it.
A world view is very powerful and self-reinforcing. A world view can be a very limited understanding of the way the world actually works — how the political system works, how markets work, history, etc — combined with a lot of propaganda and misinterpreted exlanations that conjure up images that support the propaganda, that imply motives and so forth. With this kind of world view, each new piece of data can easily be interpreted according to unlikely explanations because it fits in with past beleif.
I was in this exact place at one point, so I know from experience. And I'm not stupid
Miami University of Ohio's football team used to be the Redskins, but a few years ago their name was changed to the RedHawks. I thought the solution my brother advocated was more elegant: keep the name, but change the team's mascot to a potato.
I have no stake in this issue, but I think there's an argument for changing the name that you're neglecting: The name "Redskins" may not have been chosen for the purpose of offending aboriginal Americans, but it is nonetheless offensive to them. Perhaps that's false, but it can't be dismissed a priori.
I'm in total agreement! I'm a proud graduate of St. John's University in Queens, and we're formerly known as the "Red Men", we have seen been renamed the "Red Storm"… Red Storm??? What is that?!
If you can recall, a little over a year ago the Seminole tribe fought against the NCAA so that FSU sport teams can remain the "Seminoles"…. http://www.sptimes.com/2005/08/24/Sports/NCAA_backs_down_on_FS.shtml
I tend to agree that a person shouldn't take offense at a term when no offense is intended, but I think most people would not. It's certainly not obvious enough that you can implicitly assume it. You never even really addressed that issue.
Let's give those who object to names like "Redskins" the benefit of the doubt. The history of racism is largely a history of ingrained, unconscious sensibilities. Many a racist has not believed himself to be one. Many a racist has had the best of intentions. It's plausible enough to see the "Redskins" label as an outgrowth of the long tradition of Europeans consciously and unconsciously romanticizing/demonizing the exotic "other" for purposes of exclusion or disrespectful assimilation. That's at ~least~ as plausible as attributing the label to perfectly innocent admiration and pride. Anyway, this is where the dialectic should go if you want to object to the appropriateness of american indians feeling insulted by "Redskins" and the like. There's a historical context here.
What about the "Fighting Yids"?
I enjoyed the discussion of possible/plausible/compelling explanations for why things are the way they are. I think you make also make a good point about political correctness run amok. But I think if I were a native american I might resent the continued use of Redskins in the team name. How would the name Blackskins, or Yellowskins, or Brownskins, or Albinoskins go over? Probably like a lead balloon.
All is not lost, however. Redskins can also refer to a Spanish variety of the lowly peanut. Peanuts are also a ballpark favorite. By replacing the Indian head with Mr. Peanut head the problem will be solved. Although there may be a legal issue pertaining to the infringement of a well-established trademark. As a "free" market capitalist, the infringement of a trademark would probably be more offensive to you than the "Indian Redskins" team epithet. Perhaps the "best" solution is to retain the name Indian Redskins and pay the American Indians millions in reparations for continued use of that team name. Money talks and everything else walks in this money-driven society of yours. I think the Indians have caught on to the profit-motive concept evidenced by the expansion of casino gambling on their reservations. Can a deal be reached?
I'll give the creator(s) of the Redskins name the benefit of the doubt with regards to their intentions in the creation of the Redskins name. It's quite possible that they had only the best of motives. However, it is not up to the creators of the name to determine whether its offensive. The group being referenced is probably in a better position to make that assessment. Not a few Native Americans find the name offensive. A reasonable person shouldn't insist on using words that offend others, imo. We're not talking about censoring thoughts or ideas, this is simply a matter of word choice, semantics.
The value in the Redskins franchise(it's the most valuable sports team in the NFL and maybe even the world) doesn't rest on the name of the team. Joe Gibbs Superbowl vicotories and a large, loyal fanbase that just happens to be in one of the richest areas of the country are where the value is derived from. Dan Snyder could change the name tomorrow and he'd still sell out every single game. Might a new logo sell a few extra jerseys/hats/apparel? I happen to think so. Mr. Snyder need not look far for an example of such a move. Abe Pollin changed the name of the Washington Bullets to the Wizards years ago and they're doing just fine.
I find the use of the term "Native American" offensive. It really means anyone born in America, like English/Scottish me. Why should the Redskins have the right to insist that it be used exclusively for themselves? And, of course, if anyone still believes in settling things by democratic means, I would bet that most American Indians don't insist on being called Native Americans at all. Only the fake ones who teach college. And if they weren't born here it's especially inapt.
If they want to set right Columbus's mistake about the location of the Indies, they can call themselves something interesting, like "Atlanteans". Until then, "American Indian" should be fine.
I asked a coworker of Oneida descent, who identifies himself as an "Indian" and not a "Native American" whether he found such names offensive, and he said "Only when the team is losing."
It is always offensive to use a nickname or slang as a name if the person or group objects. We all know this from our school days, as it is one of the favorite forms of torment student inflict on each other. The intention does not matter. It shows a fundamental disrespect.
liberty: "And many Indians (who tend to prefer "Indian" to "Native American"
The word "indian" is a corruption of the French "indigène" which means, in America, "native American".
Now you've done it!
As a professor at a great American university, you must understand that the use of such nicknames or slurs in your blog is grounds for immediate censure and dismissal.
True, you could claim First Amendment rights, but that would mean absolutely nothing once the ACLU gets wind of this.
Your argument sounds exactly the same as the people that defend the flying of the confederate flag on state grounds. They say that there is nothing offensive meant by it, that it is a reflection of their "heritage". They claim that it has nothing to do with slavery but about their proud past as southerners. Funny enough, slave descended black Americans see it as part of their heritage too, and a rather offensive part of it. So who is right? They both are of course, but each side claiming that the other is overly sensitive or being stupid doesn't help. If what you do deeply offends a large group of people (and this crosses over to the population at large, not just the "wronged" party) common sense, not to mention basic courtesy would suggest that it isn't a great thing to do. When it comes to something as silly as a football team name, what is the upside of sticking to something that offends so many?
Isaac
In short, if what you are doing offends Isaac Crawford, it doesn't matter whether the putative "wronged party" sees no insult in it.
Black guys aren’t Vikings, they are destroying my heritage. Who can I sue about this?
You miss the point.
Naming the team the Washington Redskins is not so much like calling them the Washington Niggers but rather calling them the Washington Spearthrowers. That is a term that suggests strength and sounds like it fits a tough football team but is, of course, a slur when used to describe black people. Perhaps calling them the Washington Spearthrowers (or Watermelon men or Fried Chickens) could be done to 'honor' the many black people on the team and in DC as strong, but the reality is that it is a stereotype and a horrible slur.
Why is it so hard just to be courteous?
I would defend to the death the right of the Redskins to use whatever name they want. Of course, I would NEVER buy any of their merchandise because of the name so I have voted with my pocketbook.
The Ragin' Cajuns. That brings back some memories….the University of Southwestern Louisiana (as they used to be called) at McNeese State.
All those Lake Charlesians yelling "Go to hell, USL…..Go to hell, USL." And on and on it went.
That never seemed to anger the people from Lafayette, and none of the Cajuns seemed to be angered at the nickname. In fact, the only time I ever recall a verbal fight was when somebody said 'the only good restaurant in Lafayette was the motel restaurant at the Holiday Inn on I-10.' Guess them was REAL fightin' words!?
Go Marquette Warriors!
Let's Go, Stanford Indians!
"In short, if what you are doing offends Isaac Crawford, it doesn't matter whether the putative "wronged party" sees no insult in it."
Clearly you miss my point and fail to address any points of my argument. It doesn't matter to me at all, but I find the fact that so many people are willing to intentionally piss people off disturbing. There is no such thing as a cohesive "Native American" alliance that thinks uniformly about anything. I'm sure that there are plenty of people in tribes here in the US who really don't care what the DC football franchise is called but clearly there are plenty that do. There are also many other people of other races that could be offended by what seems to be a team that goes out of its way to make some people upset. I don't believe that there should be anything done to the franchise legally, but I do believe that it speaks volumes about the people that cling to this name. Dr. Boudreaux's argument seem to be, "I don't see anything wrong with it so why would anyone else?" This also seems to be the rationale used by everyone that defends the choice of this name. Should they change their name? That's really only for the ownership of the team to decide of course, but why distrust and question the motives of the people that really are offended? And why is it so wrong to be offended?
Isaac
What I find offensive is the idea that if there was no offensive intent way back when the name was first coined, there can't be any offense taken today. Language and social mores change — as do the names of NFL teams. This "original constructivist" view of naming is plain silly, since the question is whether people are offended *today*.
I object to being called an American. "Amer" causes me to burst into "bitter" tears when it doesn't claim I'm "at sea". Clearly (clearly!) those who use this awful word mean to invoke associations with the various MERI (shiver), such as the Medical Education and Research Institute, and still more odious, Meri Poppins, that gruesome figure of eldritch horror. As for "Rican", I am neither Costa nor Puerto–not that there's anything wrong with it!–it just causes confusion. By using "ICAN" you want to claim I was untimely ripped from my mother's womb, and not "born of woman". And I know you're being ironic by saying "I can", when you very well know I can't. Oh, the shame!
The term "Hoosier" was at one time meant to be pejorative, but today it's a badge of honor for Indiana University teams.
Not sure how boilermakers regard Purdue's recent reputation on the court and field, nor Irishmen Notre Dame's.
Almost everything we say offends someone – and if (like some here) we apply a subjective test of whether a given group takes offense, how do we preserve free speech at all?
Try saying something critical about Islam for example. Some Muslims seem to take very serious offense very quickly. If we choose words that offend no Muslims, we will arrive by process of elimination at the single phrase "I submit".
Intent does matter. Civilized people should be able not to take offense when none is intended. If they feel offended, despite there being no intent to offend, that's their right. To me, it seems like a pretty dumb right to exercise, but that's up to them
B.T.W., I think the football team hails from Washington State, not Washington D.C.
Anyway, I believe people who say they are offended, even if they are not native american, they may still be offended. For a while the Cleveland Indians mascot was really offensive, he was cartoonish and he did little dances, which approximated sacred dances, but they were homerun dances. I think the Redskin's logo is more respectful.
Obviously, it is up to the team to decide whether or not to change their name, but I wouldn't go as far to say that the people who are offended are totally out of line and moronic. The fact that some native americans are not offended does not mean that others aren't.
Of course intent matters. When you say something, and I take offense, and you respond saying "Wow, sorry, I didn't expect you to be offended by that, I won't do it again." If I believe you, once I'm over any initial shock, we have no problem.
OTOH, if your response is "WTF, can't you take a joke? What a whiny asshole. There's no law that says I can't call you a . If I want to call you a , I'll call you a ." well that might just affect my opinions about your intent.
Whether "redskin" was intended as an insult 100 years ago is not relevant to whether it is now.
In fact, it almost certainly did have insulting connotations even 100 years ago, but our society at the time was so permeated by racism that it may not have been particularly noticeable, at least to white poeple. "Spearchuckers" seems like an appropriate analogy. It contains elements that are positive and would make a good team name, but is clearly a racial slur.
In any case, I believe that mannning the barricades in the face of large numbers of people who feel the name is offensive is evidence of less than pristine intent today.
It's DC, Bill.
With one of the few surviving munchkins as the owner nobody will care what they're called besides last place.How 'bout the oompa – loompas?
The motivation behind the name "redskins" was the idea of the Savage. They named themselves after something they thought was wild and violent and primitive.
That is why it is so bad! "Redskins" carries with it the idea that American Indians are inherently different. That kind of generalization is hurtful. If the prejudice persists that all Indians want to do is fight each other and chase buffalo then what kinds of jobs are they going to get? What will children on reservations be taught to believe about themselves?
It isn't JUST A NAME OF A TEAM, if you think it doesn't matter then you aren't considering all of the people who are being marginalized. America was built upon the suppression of indigenous cultures. This was justified by people who said Indians were stupid and violent. That is why "Redskins" is bad. It implies that Indians are savage and athletic and not anything else.