The Onion - Going too far?

[GA Russell]

Before the Braves moved to Atlanta, Atlanta's AA and AAA teams were called the Atlanta Crackers.

Nowadays young blacks call whites Crackers as if it were some sort of insult, but I don't think white people care.

[Jerry_L]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Redskins

The team originated as the Boston Braves, based in Boston, Massachusetts, in 1932. At the time the team played in Braves Field, home of the Boston Braves baseball team. The following year the club moved to Fenway Park, home of the Boston Red Sox, whereupon owners changed the team's name to the Boston Redskins.

I guess the name was originally intended to play off of Red Sox and the original name of Braves.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Braves_Field

Nicknamed The Wigwam by fans, Braves Field was also known as The Bee Hive (or National League Park, formally) from 1936–1941, a period during which the owners changed the nickname of the team to the Boston Bees (the renaming of the team and stadium never took hold with the public, and were both eventually dropped). It did host the Major League Baseball All-Star Game during that span in 1936, however. Braves Field served as one of two homes (with Fenway Park) of the Boston Bulldogs of the first American Football League (in 1926) and the Boston Shamrocks of the second AFL (in 1936 and 1937). It was also the home of a National Football League franchise which began in 1932 and also called itself the Boston Braves for one year. The next year, the team moved to Fenway Park and changed its name to the Redskins (which served the dual purpose of sounding like "Red Sox" and allowing the team to retain its Native American-logoed Braves uniforms). In 1937 the team transferred south to become the Washington Redskins. With its capacity to hold more fans than Fenway, Braves Field was actually used by the Red Sox in the 1915 and 1916 World Series.

Edited October 23, 2013 by Jerry_L

[ejp626]

We could reach back in time and riff off the Boston Bees monicker. How about the Washington Wasps?

[skeith]

We could reach back in time and riff off the Boston Bees monicker. How about the Washington Wasps?

that would piss off the white anglo saxon protestants in Washington....

[Jerry_L]

We could reach back in time and riff off the Boston Bees monicker. How about the Washington Wasps?

that would piss off the white anglo saxon protestants in Washington....

Yes, I'd stick with something safer like the Washington Maggots, Lice, or Greenflies.

Edited October 23, 2013 by Jerry_L

[ejp626]

We could reach back in time and riff off the Boston Bees monicker. How about the Washington Wasps?

that would piss off the white anglo saxon protestants in Washington....

Yes, I'd stick with something safer like the Washington Maggots, Lice, or Greenflies.

The Washington Boot-lickers? Not quite as catchy as Knickerbockers, but I think people would come around.

[Dave Garrett]

[Jerry_L]

The fans will probably like that better than my next suggestion, the Washington Buttplugs.

[Larry Kart]

I remember a number of really offensive product names from my youth that no longer exist, and also slogans & images that have changed over time to reflect a less patronizing attitude.

My people are eternally grateful for the disappearance of Dreft and Halo. We sleep better without those slurs hanging around.

[danasgoodstuff]

Reminds me of Merle Travis' "So Round, So Firm, So Fully Packed", kinda.

Edited October 24, 2013 by danasgoodstuff

[bertrand]

Other options:

The Washington smallpox blankets.

The Washington post-docs.

Bertrand.

[kh1958]

The Washington Nosy Nellies.

[Jerry_L]

Other options:

The Washington smallpox blankets.

The Washington post-docs.

Bertrand.

Ha-ha, how about the Washington Treaty-breakers?

[ejp626]

Other options:

The Washington smallpox blankets.

The Washington post-docs.

Bertrand.

Ha-ha, how about the Washington Treaty-breakers?

It doesn't quite fit DC, but I would love to see a team called the Carpet-Baggers. Maybe the Charlotte Carpet-Baggers?

[Jerry_L]

Realistically, though, Snyder should announce the name is going to change and let the fans offer suggestions and vote on it. Change the name, change the logo. Then they can sell all new branded merchandise!

[Shawn]

Washington Clusterfucks

[rockefeller center]

The onion is going soooooo far! Gulp. I'm upset. Not AWESOME at all.

[king ubu]

I gulp with you - and I have my strawberry wine now and shut up ...

[mjzee]

The Onion has always been raw. Remember "Alzheimer's Sufferers Demand Cure For Pancakes?" Their more grievous sin for the past few years is they haven't been funny very often. Regarding the article posted by OP, it probably could have been written a lot more sharply and funnier; the reason we're focussed on its bad taste is because there isn't much else there.

[Jim Alfredson]

In the UK the Onion could be prosecuted for racism, correctly in my book.

Really? You think it's correct to prosecute a satirical publication for racism?

[David Ayers]

In the UK the Onion could be prosecuted for racism, correctly in my book.

Really? You think it's correct to prosecute a satirical publication for racism?

Yes. Here the question of interpretation lies in the offence given. In this article, an individual is slurred with racial epithets. That offends Jews, not just him. Otherwise the excuse for racism becomes 'oh I was only joking'.

In any case, what happens in a joke? This joke focalises racial aggression. There is no point in dignifying it by analysing its layers. In my book this is actually classic anti-semitism. The message to Jews is: look, you have to put up with this language, one of your kind has stepped out of line - watch out, there's plenty more where this came from.

[Big Wheel]

In the UK the Onion could be prosecuted for racism, correctly in my book.

Really? You think it's correct to prosecute a satirical publication for racism?

Yes. Here the question of interpretation lies in the offence given. In this article, an individual is slurred with racial epithets. That offends Jews, not just him. Otherwise the excuse for racism becomes 'oh I was only joking'.

In any case, what happens in a joke? This joke focalises racial aggression. There is no point in dignifying it by analysing its layers. In my book this is actually classic anti-semitism. The message to Jews is: look, you have to put up with this language, one of your kind has stepped out of line - watch out, there's plenty more where this came from.

That's completely absurd. This joke does the opposite of focalize racial aggression and the only way to figure that out is to understand the context -that is, to analyze its layers.

The whole point of this joke is to lampoon the patronizing attitude of most Americans (and particularly Dan Snyder) who keep saying that "Redskins" is not racially offensive even though this is the easiest and cheapest opinion for those people (since they are not themselves Indians) to have. It does this by setting up an analogous example that's OBVIOUSLY AND INTENTIONALLY racially offensive to point out that these same people would never stand for it if their ethnicities were caricatured like this. It has nothing to do with making Jews "put up with this language" and everything to do with illustrating the ways in which powerful people make others put up with the same kind of language every day.

[David Ayers]

In the UK the Onion could be prosecuted for racism, correctly in my book.

Really? You think it's correct to prosecute a satirical publication for racism?

Yes. Here the question of interpretation lies in the offence given. In this article, an individual is slurred with racial epithets. That offends Jews, not just him. Otherwise the excuse for racism becomes 'oh I was only joking'.

In any case, what happens in a joke? This joke focalises racial aggression. There is no point in dignifying it by analysing its layers. In my book this is actually classic anti-semitism. The message to Jews is: look, you have to put up with this language, one of your kind has stepped out of line - watch out, there's plenty more where this came from.

That's completely absurd. This joke does the opposite of focalize racial aggression and the only way to figure that out is to understand the context -that is, to analyze its layers.

The whole point of this joke is to lampoon the patronizing attitude of most Americans (and particularly Dan Snyder) who keep saying that "Redskins" is not racially offensive even though this is the easiest and cheapest opinion for those people (since they are not themselves Indians) to have. It does this by setting up an analogous example that's OBVIOUSLY AND INTENTIONALLY racially offensive to point out that these same people would never stand for it if their ethnicities were caricatured like this. It has nothing to do with making Jews "put up with this language" and everything to do with illustrating the ways in which powerful people make others put up with the same kind of language every day.

No. I understand the supposed layers, and I am saying the layering is deeper than that, uncontrollable, rests on and reproduces prejudices which the 'wit' of a jejeune copywriter cannot shape. Why should people have to listen to this language. This is easily understood if we reflect that the equivalent language would not have been used if the supposed offender were black. A key to getting out of racism is to show people that what they thought was humor is in fact just racism. I can't even say that those who wrote this or find it funny have no ill-will towards Jews, but lets say that the perpetrators and defenders of the remarks as they see it are 'in good faith', it is exactly that sense that one means no harm that is at stake, here, in the question of the Redskins name. That is, it cuts both ways. This style of remark would only ever have been aimed at a Jew and not at any other race.

'

Edited October 25, 2013 by David Ayers

[Big Wheel]

Why should people have to listen to this language.

They don't. They can, for example, read Reader's Digest or Good Housekeeping or any number of non-Onion publications.

This is easily understood if we reflect that the equivalent language would not have been used if the supposed offender were black.

If you are really 100% certain of this reflection, you haven't read very much of The Onion.

A key to getting out of racism is to show people that what they thought was humor is in fact just racism.

Yes - in the cases where the humor is stupid and irony-free like, say, minstrelsy. These kinds of humor are racist because they amount to the powerful making fun of the powerless. The article in question resolutely fails to fall into this category. Its primary target is a billionaire who refuses to throw even the smallest rhetorical bone to the descendants of genocide victims, arguably the most powerless group of people in America. Its secondary target is nice regular middle-class people who just can't bring themselves to identify with those descendants of genocide victims because, you know, FOOTBALL.

I can't even say that those who wrote this or find it funny have no ill-will towards Jews, but lets say that the perpetrators and defenders of the remarks as they see it are 'in good faith', it is exactly that sense that one means no harm that is at stake, here, in the question of the Redskins name. That is, it cuts both ways.

This is sophistry. You appear to think that we should always read offensively-worded irony (what the Onion does) as literally as offensively-worded non-irony (stuff Dan Snyder says that he clearly really means).

No.

No.

The idea that satire plays on the same field as its target and is subject to some common standard that "cuts both ways" is clearly stupid. The whole point of satire is to be more offensive on the surface than its target.

Are we going to rage at the creator of T. Herman Zweibel for his/her clear racism toward the world's 1 billion Catholics, too?

This style of remark would only ever have been aimed at a Jew and not at any other race.

Since you haven't even really specified what "style" of remark you're talking about and what the characteristics of that "style" are, it's hard to comment on such a claim.

As for your first sentence that I didn't quote, it appears to be based on some too-cute-by-half critical theory. Sorry, I'm only fluent in English.

Edited October 25, 2013 by Big Wheel

[Big Beat Steve]

Like Kurt Tucholsky said in 1919 upon the question "What is satire allowed to do?"

"EVERYTHING!"

Too bad the pendulum swings back in so many ways into a network of instrumentalized offendedness (that often is only out to quiet those who voice criticism in the sharpest way possible to get the message home so you HAVE to confront the issue) in today's world.

I can see the point of keeping up the tradition of this team's name (though I can also see the reasons that ought to speak in favor of choosing a more up-to-date name) and if the Onion sees fit to publish the article along the lines of "If you as the owner of this team cannot see any reason why this name that offends a certain group of people ought to be thought over, then how about becoming the butt of such offensive terms yourself just so you see what it feels like?" Isn't this quite obvious, just as obvious as the fact that it is only this VERY person that is targeted and nobody else?

Instructive at any rate ... never heard the term "kike" before ...