Discussion in 'NFL Zone' started by TwoDeep3, Aug 8, 2013.
What rights have been denied native americans over this issue?
What would be incorrect about it?
You don't know very many derogatory names for Native Americans if you think "Redskin" is the most derogatory name there is.
Actually the earliest mentions of the name "redskin" was from Native Americans themselves. The French would later use the term in reference to NA's, but always made mention that they heard it from the NAs themselves. Europeans would refer to NAs as "red skins" in an effort to ingratiate themselves to the natives. This was backed up by research by the senior linguist at the Smithsonian Institute, among others.
I wouldn't walk up to a Native American and call them a Native American lol.
If I'm gonna call them anything other than their name, I'm gonna refer to them by their tribe.
None of that changes the fact that NAs did indeed refer to themselves as "red skins" and that Europeans followed their lead in doing the same.
Now, if the argument for a name change were "While NAs did indeed refer to themselves as 'red skins' for the first few centuries of the country's founding, they stopped using that term to define themselves because they didn't think it was appropriate anymore. We think the Washington Redskins should follow their lead and change the team name", that would be one helluva better argument than "Everyone knows 'redskin' is the most derogatory name for Native Americans that ever existed! It's the equivalent of the 'N-word'!!...It originated from the bloody scalps of indians!!!...it's been used as a racial epithet continuously throughout the country's history!!!!...Only white racists think otherwise!!!"
The right to be identified not by their skin color.
So if Jerry sells up then you would have no problem if the new owner decided Dallas Ponies has a nice ring to it? Or is the team name only the current owners responsibility when it suits your argument?
It's always "PC" when it benefits others.
When it's ourselves, then it's "rights".
I wouldn't like it but that is his right. Anyhow, it seems like you are having trouble comprehending how ownership works.
People are referred to their skin color all the time. Every time I fill out an employment application I check the box "White, but not Hispanic." I am not offended by this.
Caucasians are referred to as white; African Americans, Carribean Islanders, etc. etc. are all referred to as "black."
Oh yeah--and it's Slate. Who cares? Do they even cover sports?
Cowboy is not or never has been considered a racial slur by anyone so any offense to the word would be made up. That is a ridiculous arguement born out of an indefensible position you are forced into because the team you are a fan of has an outdated racist name. The fact is that no matter where the word came from or how many ways it has been used, it has been used as a racial slur towards Native Americans in the past and a significant number of them take offense to the term. No one uses the word to address Native Americans for a reason and we all know what that is. It's the same reason the name should not be used for a team mascot. Of course you are done. You are defending an indefensible situation and you have no coherent response to the fact that you would not address a Native American as a redskin and the reason you would not is because it would be racist to do it.
That's a right? lol...
Google is my friend. I especially like these:
"Redskin" is a racial descriptor for Native Americans, the origins of which are disputed. Although by some accounts not originally having negative intent, the term is now defined by dictionaries of American English as "usually offensive", "disparaging", "insulting", "taboo"  and is avoided in public usage with the exception of its continued use as a name for sports teams. (So you are really okay with your team name being defined by dictionaries as offensive and insulting?)
The term derives from the use of "red" as a color metaphor for race following European colonization of the Western Hemisphere. While initial explorers and later Anglo-Americans termed Native Americans light-skinned, brown, tawny, and russet. According to historian Alden T. Vaughan, "Not until the middle of the eighteenth century did most Anglo-Americans view Indians as significantly different in color from themselves, and not until the nineteenth century did red become the universally accepted color label for American Indians." Slang identifiers for ethnic groups based upon physical characteristics, including skin color, are almost universally slurs, or derogatory, emphasizing the difference between the speaker and the target. (OUCH!!!!)
A linguistic analysis of books published between 1875 and 1930 show an increasingly negative context in the use of redskin, often in association with "dirty", "lying", etc.; while benign or positive usage such as "noble" redskin were used in a condescending manner. The term continued in common use until the 1960s, as evidenced in Western movies, but is now largely considered a pejorative and is seldom used publicly (aside from the football team - see below). As with any term perceived to be discriminatory, different individuals may hold differing opinions of the term's appropriateness. (This one is especially interesting since it shows that the word was becoming increasingly offensive for the 60-65 years before it was chosen as the name for the team in 1937.)
Current use[edit source | edit]
In the contemporary United States, "redskin" is often but not universally regarded as a racial epithet. The term is considered by some to be extremely offensive (an r-word for Native Americans equivalent to the n-word for African-Americans), but neutral by others. The American Heritage style guide advises that "the term redskin evokes an even more objectionable stereotype" than the use of red as a racial adjective by outsiders, while others urge writers to use the term only in a historical context. The consensus based upon a comparison of current media usage and dictionary definitions is that the term has negative or disparaging connotations. Devastating!
However a wide range of civil rights, and professional organizations  and over 500 American Indian groups  have called for the end of the use of all Native American references by sports teams. (I thought 90% were fine with it)
Public protest of the name began in 1968, with a resolution by the National Congress of American Indians. Native American groups and their supporters argue that since they view the word "redskin" as offensive that it is inappropriate for a NFL team to continue to use it, regardless of whether any offense is intended.[ (So their National Congress started whole protest of the word but we are supposed to believe 90% view the word as fine)
All of that means nothing because the word evolved into a generally accepted racial slur that no one uses at all anymore accept when referring to sports teams. If a term cannot be used in everyday conversation in the company of those it refers to, then it must be outdated and offensive and, thus, inappropriate to use as a mascot.
The answer to that should be fairly obvious.. if it isn't one thing, its the other.
I wouldn't walk up to an African American and call them an African American either. That's a fairly useless observation you make there.
However, i also wouldn't walk up and say, "Hey, blackskin!" either.. as you wouldn't.
took me 4 pages before this even came up:
an old-fashioned informal name, now considered taboo, for a Native American
[C17: so called because one particular tribe, the now extinct Beothuks of Newfoundland, paintedthemselves with red ochre]
so it's not because indians have 'red skin' but because ONE TRIBE painted themselves red.
"The term Redskin, applied by Europeans to Algonquins in general and the Delawares in particular," says the Reader’s Digest in its book America’s Fascinating Indian Heritage , "was inspired not by their natural complexion but by their fondness for vermilion makeup, concocted from fat mixed with berry juice and minerals that provided the desired color." The men "would streak their faces and bodies with bright red ocher and bloodroot," adds the Reader’s Digest .
Indians painted their skin for decorative and ceremonial purposes. "Red is generally accepted as being one of the colors most easily available to and most used by Indians," as Ronald P. Koch states in his book Dress Clothing of the Plains Indians ."
so it's not cause they're indian, but because they wore red paint.
get over it.
The difference here, Schools and the like receive Federal Funding and as such, must bow to such political pressures on occasion. The Washington Redskins are privately owned and operated. They have no obligation to kowtow to such pressure.
This is funny to me because I actually work with several Native Americans. I would estimate that perhaps a third of the people I work with are Native American. They are pretty evenly split, down the middle, half Cowboy fans and half Redskin fans. I can go out in the parking lot right now and find stickers and logos for both teams all over the place.
Thing is, if it were so offensive, you would think that they would be offended by it and not sport it. Yet they do. It's a mystery alright.
Why do you assume that the name Redskins is considered offensive by Native American's? It is my experience that most, at least the one's I have meet, are indifferent about it. Heck, a lot of them proudly proclaim that they are Redskin Fans. I don't think they associate that term with themselves. It's a team name and nothing more. It doesn't seem to carry a derogatory attachment with it for most Native Americans I know.