The Washington Redskins should change their team name

Definitions: "Redskin"Oxford:"dated or offensive: An American Indian. " (1)Dictionary. com: (2)"Slang: Often Disparaging and Offensive. A North American Indian. ""an old-fashioned informal name, now considered taboo, for a Native American"Google: (3)"noun dated offensive: an American Indian. "Con wrote that there can be "no semantics" in this debate (R1), which means that the most standard use a word must be accepted. Con and I are obligated to accept that "Redskin" is offensive per the standard definitions. -"Cultural genocide"". .. cultural genocide implies the process of undermining, suppressing, and ultimately eliminating, native cultures. " (4)-(1) . http://tinyurl.com...(2) . http://tinyurl.com...(3) . http://tinyurl.com...(4) . http://tinyurl.com...[bold added]=Case=Ethical Obligations to change the name:Obligation #1 Hate slur1. The term was featured on a standard hate slur database (5), and was called "offensive" or "taboo," by the 3 dictionaries above.2. Obviously, sports teams should not name their teams ethnic slurs. Washington is obligated to change their name for this reason. The San Francisco "N-----s" would be messed up. - (5) . http://tinyurl.com...Obligation #2: Tribal opinionThe National Congress of American Indians, the largest group representing American and Alaskan Indians (over 1.2 million Native Americans enrolled) are staunchly opposed to the name of the Washington team. (6, 7, 8) So are the Cherokee, Comanche, Oneida, Seminole, and Osage tribes (6, 9). Con quoted two persons, as if they represented all of the 500 American Indian tribes. In contrast, the opinions of 5 tribes, as well as the representation of 1.2 million Native Americas, are against the name. Clearly Washington's team should change its name. -(6) . http://tinyurl.com...(7) . http://tinyurl.com...(8) . http://tinyurl.com...(9) . http://tinyurl.com...Obligation #3: Ask permission! The Washington team ought to acquire the permission of the groups they are representing before they use their name. If they are representing the Sioux, they should have the Sioux's permission. However, they are representing every tribe, and are therefore required to acquire every tribe's permission. So far, Washington's football team has **never** requested permission from a tribe to use the name. Until they do so, they are obligated to change their name in the meantime. Even if Con proves that the "Red*kins" isn't offensive to any tribe (ha), the Washington team is still obligated to ask permission before taking the name. Obligation #4 Racist stereotypesWashington's team name unfortunately promotes racist stereotypes.1. Savage Warrior: Franchise team names are chosen in football *not* to honor a people"s heritage, but emphasize their ferocity (Lions, Raiders, Bears, etc). In the case of "Redskins," this refers back to the savage warrior.2. All the same: All of the 500 Native American tribes have unique cultures. By trying to represent a "Redskin," the Washington team contributes to the perception that Native Americans are all alike. Obligation #5 Redface/costumed fansWe know that wearing blackface is wrong. We know that disrespecting other cultures is wrong. We know that characterizing ethnic groups as violent is wrong. Why does Washington choose a name that would encourage their fans to dress in redface? -1. Feathered Headdressesa. The headdress is regarded as a sacred token for great accomplishments of tribal warriors. Most in those select tribes do not consider themselves worthy to wear the headdress. And yet, Washington fans seem to have no problems wearing headdresses, drinking with headdress, or dressing sexually with headdress. (10, 11) This is basically like peeing into a Catholic Communion cup. b. The practice is not only *very* disrespectful but also paints a distorted picture of Native Americans, since most don't wear headdresses. -2. Harmful and disrespectful stereotypesFans who go to football games often drink, act rowdy, or even behave violently. This may be somewhat acceptable in certain circumstances; however, when they are in redface they are perpetuating the stereotype that Native Americans have these negative traits (especially those associated with alcohol). -(10) . http://tinyurl.com...(11) . http://tinyurl.com...Obligation #6 Job discriminationObviously, the perpetuation of negative racial stereotypes (violent, alcoholic, wild, etc. ) leads to discrimination in the workplace, as evidenced by the higher unemployment rate of tribal persons compared to white persons (12, 13). The Washington team has an obligation to minimize its contribution to this injustice. -(12) . http://tinyurl.com...(13) . http://tinyurl.com...Obligation #7 Cultural GenocideCon seems to think that misrepresenting Native Americans" history (such as by misrepresenting their clothes, behaviors, and tribal distinctiveness) is no big deal. However, for many Native Americans, heritage was a matter of life and death. In the 1930s 100,000 Native Americans were forced into off-reservation boarding schools, where their culture was forced out of them. Worse: "Torture was used to punish native language use; children were involuntarily sterilized and died of disease, beating, poisoning, hanging, starvation, strangulation, and medical experimentation. " (14)Brave children fought for their heritage and were killed or beaten. Those who survived lost the use of their language and culture (14). Today, many tribes struggle to retain their dignity, the same dignity that is undermined when Non-natives play "Redskins. "Much of the culture of these tribes has been lost, and the media doesn't help, replacing Native American's actual cultures with a generic Hollywood invention (the "redskin"). Many more American Indian children are in foster care than other races (14). Native representations on television (such as Washington games) may be their only source of their understanding of Native cultures growing up (14). Clearly, Washington's team should *stop* their contributing to this cultural genocide by stopping their perpetuating Hollywood stereotypes. - (14) . http://tinyurl.com...Practical Obligations:Obligation #8: Memorabilia salesWashington will soon be losing almost all of their funds from memorabilia, because their trademark has been revoked. =Rebuttals=Most of Con's contentions are completely off-topic. Nevertheless, I will go through each of them point-by-point and show *exactly* why they fail to help Con's case, and also why most of them help my own case. "Limiting Liberty"No one is limiting the liberty of the Washington team. My position is merely to advocate what the Washington *should* do, and not what it must do. "Taking Offense Doesn't Mandate Change"This is irrelevant to the discussion of whether Washington should change its name. "Rationality"Con called the Native American tribes "irrational" for being offended that Washington's team has an ethnic hate slur for their name. 1. Besides being untopical, Con has no right to tell Native Americans how to feel about the ethnic slurs that target them.2. Using an ethnic slur for a team name is more irrational than being offended, and only the former is the focus of the debate. *Turn! * (Obligation #9)3. Since "redskin" was historically used to refer to the scalp of a Native American when Europeans would hunt them, exchanging their "red-skin" for cash (15), I'd say there are sufficient justifications for taking offense at the word's casual use! *Turn! * (Obligation #10)-(15) . http://tinyurl.com... "Originalism"1. Originalism works for the word "help," but that is very, *very* far from showing it works for all words. 2. Con offers *no* evidence that Originalism is relevant to this debate.3. There are lots of people using the "R-word," and there is no way to find out all of their intentions. "Intention"1. The team name is being questioned, not the owners. (Untopical)2. We can't know for sure the intentions of the fans, owners, or players. Judging by an almost comedic history of racism, though, we can guess that the original intentions were probably racist. *Turn! * (Obligation #11)a. Washington's team was the last to allow segregation in the NFL (16)b. Washington had cheerleaders dressed as "sexy squaws" perform rain-dances and *threaten to scalp* the opposing team (the original "Hail to the Redskins") (17, 18). -(16) . http://tinyurl.com...(17) . http://tinyurl.com...(18) . http://tinyurl.com... "Majority"1. Con has showed no significant harm for people who want to keep the name. 2. ESPN's two polls (both are ESPN's) were inaccurate for many reasons, including the fact that they offered no alternative names for people to compare to. 3. The "R-word" does not necessarily need to be changed permanently. They would at least need to get the tribes" permission first.4. Con gives no reason why Washington is obliged to please their fans. "Utilitarianism"/Deontology1. From the perspective of deontology (probably more relevant to the debate)-evaluating ethics in terms of moral actions instead of results-I have shown many moral and practical obligations for Washington to change its name.2. However, with regard to utilitarianism I am even still clearly winning overall. I have shown many benefits for changing the name and many harms for not changing it. "Fighting Sioux"This debate is not on the Fighting Sioux. "More racism"1. Con gives exactly zero reasons why Washington's changing its name causes racism.2. If protesting Washington is a waste of time, then Washington should change the name in order to send protesters home. *Turn! * (Obligation #12)==Although Con's round was well-written, he failed to demonstrate any impacts. I only needed to show one obligation for Washington to change its team name in order to win this debate, but I've shown *12*. I have met and surpassed my Burden of Proof 12 times over.