The Redskins Name is Offensive

Thank you, Con, for your argument, and for your graciousness about my prior forfeiture. My opponent concedes a lot in his last argument. He agrees that the term under discussion is "usually found offensive." He allows that the word "could be considered a racial slur." And he acknowledges that the Washington team "know[s] what some feel about this," but still refuses to change its name.With those concessions, I'm not certain there's much left to debate. The resolution is that "The Redskins Name is Offensive" - and my opponent has agreed that, yes, it usually is offensive. Vote Pro!To engage a little bit further, though, with the spirit of my opponent's argument: Con seems to be making the case that whether the word is offensive or not is contextual. My opponent seems to be saying that although the word can be a slur in some contexts, in other contexts - and particularly, in the context of the football team - the word is harmless.I cannot imagine why it is a good idea to label a team with a name that "could be considered a racial slur." Racial slurs are an area in which one should avoid ambiguity - if your team name or mascot is maybe, kinda, I-suppose-someone-could-consider-this-racist, stay away from it! It's far better for everyone involved - not to mention much more ethically sound - to just avoid racial slurs. It's just not the kind of thing you ought to push up to the line to see what you can get away with. No other team in the NFL has this problem. Nobody calls someone a Patriot as a playground insult; no one spits the word Viking with venom (except, justifiably, Vikings fans).Again, this is not a recent problem, nor is the controversy a matter of a handful of activists. The National Congress of American Indians, the oldest and largest group of Native American tribes, has opposed the name for more than 40 years. [1]Like I acknowledged in my earlier argument, I concede my opponent's point that the term under consideration had benign, descriptive origins. So what? The "n" word had similar descriptive origins - it is, after all, a derivative of the Spanish word for black - but a history of slavery, rape, oppression, brutality, dehumanization and death have given the word its special pungency. In just the same way, the history of dispossession, forced marches, slaughter for pay, mutilation (the "skin" in question was only a scalp in euphemism - one needed to verify the age and sex of the kill, after all) [2], disease, cultural annihilation and deprivation that continues to this day have infused the "r"-word with the same nauseating stench. The word was used to dehumanize, to allow white settlers to think of Native people as something more like an animal - a wild thing that could be killed and defiled without guilt. And now we use the vocabulary of genocide and murder for our Sunday entertainment. Of the five poorest counties in the United States, four are in South Dakota - and together they comprise major portions of the Crow Creek Reservation, the Rosebud Reservation, and the Pine Ridge Reservation. While Washington football fans "honor" Native Americans with a word that "could be considered a racial slur," thousands of Native Americans in these counties subsist in third-world conditions with no kitchens or indoor plumbing. Any "honor" bestowed on Native Americans (or their distant, distant, distant relatives) via mascot while these conditions persist is a depraved joke.As with the "n" word, white society has lost any right it ever had to the "r" word as some sort of neutral descriptor. To the extent the word retains any residual value, it resides solely and properly within the Native community. They own the word now. They've paid the blood price for it.And that's it for "context."I've spoken directly about my beliefs on the morality of this matter without mincing words. My strong feelings, however, in no way diminish my respect for this forum and its participants, so I want to thank my opponent for engaging in this discussion, and I look forward to the final round.[1] http://www.washingtonpost.com...[2] http://www.politico.com...