PDA

View Full Version : Should the Redskins change their name?


Pages : [1] 2

gwallaia
06-13-2013, 10:29 AM
http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/9376010/rename-washington-redskins

cuppacoffee
06-13-2013, 10:49 AM
http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/9376010/rename-washington-redskins

There is a team in Louisiana calling themselves the Ragin' Cajuns.

As a RCA I protest this denigration of my ancestry.

Not really..:shades:

Biggest bunch of nonsense ever.

JJ Watt born in Waukesha, Wisconsin. And people call him a Texan?

Wisconsinites should march on Washington and protest.

:coffee:

Corrosion
06-13-2013, 11:17 AM
Over sensitive America ....


Too many people worried about what someone else does offending someone ... & the people it might be offensive to aren't the ones making a stink.

Playoffs
06-13-2013, 11:26 AM
This has nothing to do with the past, and everything to do with political correctness as a means to exercising power.

WHY LEFT VICIOUSLY ATTACKS RGIII, BEN CARSON
'There's too much political correctness going on in our country' (http://www.wnd.com/2013/05/why-left-viciously-attacks-rgiii-ben-carson/)

...
Borelli said the liberal culture fiercely condemns anyone who dares to challenge the ideology of the left, but she said there is special venom reserved for conservative blacks who dare to speak their minds.

“It’s all about control. The people on the left are unable to control people’s words and their actions. When you have someone like RGIII or someone like Dr. Benjamin Carson (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PFb6NU1giRA), even myself, who was vocal about liberty and people being independent and not relying on the government for example, that’s a problem for those on the left who want to control the message,” said Borelli, who noted that the liberal fear of independent thought is especially evident in the hostility aimed at Dr. Carson (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PFb6NU1giRA). She said his life is the embodiment of what is great about America, but his personal ideology makes him a target of scorn from the left instead.

Borelli said the intensity of the criticism aimed at black conservatives comes with a very clear message to all blacks from the liberal establishment.

“That is to set an example for others to not do the same thing, for anyone else to not be vocal about what they really think. Unfortunately, that works. It’s something that is very effective, making people an example of something and no one else is going to step up and challenge the so-called status quo,” Borelli said.

badboy
06-13-2013, 11:28 AM
Yes and changed the name of that stupid team in Florida with my picture on the helmet. signed Flipper

Thorn
06-13-2013, 11:51 AM
So who is going to admit to voting "yes" on this?

I'm with the others who've posted so far, this PC crap can kiss my ass.

Rey
06-13-2013, 11:58 AM
I voted yes just for the entertainment factor.

Would love for the skins to announce they are changing their name just to see all the hoopla around it...

Yvette
06-13-2013, 12:11 PM
I'm Native American. Call me a skin to my face and its on.

infantrycak
06-13-2013, 12:18 PM
I'm Native American. Call me a skin to my face and its on.

How something is said makes a great deal of difference.

Yvette
06-13-2013, 12:28 PM
cak, no amount of spin will cause me to feel any different or think it's any less racist and derogatory.

Obviously, what I say and how I feel doesn't matter to the majority of you all either.

Rey
06-13-2013, 12:30 PM
cak, no amount of spin will cause me to feel any different or think it's any less racist and derogatory.

Obviously, what I say and how I feel doesn't matter to the majority of you all either.

Actually it does matter to me.

I think people that have strong Native American ancestry are the exact people that should be voicing their opinions on this...

infantrycak
06-13-2013, 12:40 PM
cak, no amount of spin will cause me to feel any different or think it's any less racist and derogatory.

Obviously, what I say and how I feel doesn't matter to the majority of you all either.

Context is not spin - please don't lower your discourse in that fashion. I respect your opinion. I also take it in context. The polling of Native Americans shows you are in a small minority on this issue.

Dan B.
06-13-2013, 12:54 PM
My best friend's sister's boyfriend's brother's girlfriend heard from this guy who knows this kid who's going with the girl who saw a Native American at 31 Flavors last night. Does that make me Indian?

Yvette
06-13-2013, 01:02 PM
The polling of Native Americans shows you are in a small minority on this issue.
http://www.annenbergpublicpolicycenter.org/downloads/political_communication/naes/2004_03_redskins_09-24_pr.pdf

A telephone poll? Seriously? Where anyone can claim ancestry? How many of those 768 were really NAI? How many were federally recognized tribes? How many were state? How many of them were cultural? How many were just claiming blood quantum of 1/100?

Does that make me Indian?
Sure, if you answer the phone during a redskins poll.

infantrycak
06-13-2013, 01:12 PM
http://www.annenbergpublicpolicycenter.org/downloads/political_communication/naes/2004_03_redskins_09-24_pr.pdf

A telephone poll? Seriously? Where anyone can claim ancestry? How many of those 768 were really NAI? How many were federally recognized tribes? How many were state? How many of them were cultural? How many were just claiming blood quantum of 1/100?


Sure, if you answer the phone during a redskins poll.

Apparently not too many were racing to call themselves Native American.

This report deals with interviewing conducted from Oct. 7, 2003, through September 20, 2004. In that period 65,047 adults were interviewed, of whom 768 identified themselves as Indians or Native Americans.

That would be 1.2% of people contacted. I am sure there was a conspiracy to skew the results - "hey maybe if I am called on this non-publically announced poll I will claim I am Native American to keep a derogatory name." So seriously right back at ya.

What do you want freaking DNA results? Please by all means state the acceptable "Native American" levels to have an opinion.

And you don't even see the irony in your bringing in "Federal recognition" on this issue?

eriadoc
06-13-2013, 01:15 PM
http://www.annenbergpublicpolicycenter.org/downloads/political_communication/naes/2004_03_redskins_09-24_pr.pdf

A telephone poll? Seriously? Where anyone can claim ancestry? How many of those 768 were really NAI? How many were federally recognized tribes? How many were state? How many of them were cultural? How many were just claiming blood quantum of 1/100?


Sure, if you answer the phone during a redskins poll.

Apparently not too many were racing to call themselves Native American.



That would be 1.2% of people contacted. I am sure there was a conspiracy to skew the results - "hey maybe if I am called on this non-publically announced poll I will claim I am Native American to keep a derogatory name." So seriously right back at ya.

What do you want freaking DNA results? Please by all means state the acceptable "Native American" levels to have an opinion.

And you don't even see the irony in your bringing in "Federal recognition" on this issue?

LOL, this is like a "not black enough" argument. LMAO

Yvette
06-13-2013, 01:54 PM
There are almost 3 million NAI from federally recognized tribes. The distinction between federal and state recognition is there for a reason. Anyone can claim NAI blood but to obtain federal recognition you must prove it. Lots of people attempt to claim federal NAI ancestry because of real or imagined benefits. There are also quite a few out there who claim tribal affiliation but are 'adopted' (an honorary status).

If Natives from NAI colleges, reservations, outreach offices were polled, I would give serious consideration to those results, as I would any opinion from cultural Indians.

'In name only' doesn't count and I have no reason to believe those 768 people are anything other than that.

eriadoc
06-13-2013, 02:15 PM
'In name only' doesn't count and I have no reason to believe those 768 people are anything other than that.

So they're not Indian/Redskin/Native American enough for ya.

I'm either 1/16 or 1/32 Nez Perce. The ancestry is just a little fuzzy, and frankly, I've never given enough of a damn to track it down and clear it up. I've never applied for any sort of recognition or benefits, because in the end, I am an American. That means I am a mutt, just like everyone else here. Only, I embrace it instead of seeking some sort of exclusivity. So where does that attitude fit in your worldview of who should and should not be responding to polls?

Yvette
06-13-2013, 02:24 PM
If you don't identify as a Native in ancestry and culture, then your opinion of Native ancestry and culture doesn't count.

toronto
06-13-2013, 02:38 PM
So who is going to admit to voting "yes" on this?

I'm with the others who've posted so far, this PC crap can kiss my ass.

I voted yes. Always found the name in poor taste. Just me. Strongly expect to be in a massive minority here.

I don't feel strongly on the subject, I don't have a dog in the fight like Yvette.

HOU-TEX
06-13-2013, 02:40 PM
Pretty sure the Redskins have been the team name since the 30's, right? Yet, it's becoming an issue 80 years later? PC my ass, just straight pansy-ass if you ask me. Then again, seems right for todays culture

eriadoc
06-13-2013, 02:41 PM
If you don't identify as a Native in ancestry and culture, then your opinion of Native ancestry and culture doesn't count.

Ancestry is what it is. I can't change it and neither can you. Culture is what you live, so I can agree with that part of your statement. But I am descended from the Nez Perce tribe and that's just a fact.

Just so everyone knows, I'm resurrecting this thread the next time we have a "cornball brother" or "Uncle Tom" debate, LOL.

Corrosion
06-13-2013, 02:56 PM
cak, no amount of spin will cause me to feel any different or think it's any less racist and derogatory.

Obviously, what I say and how I feel doesn't matter to the majority of you all either.

I have a significant amount of Native American's in my family tree - three of my four great grandmothers were either Comanche or Cherokee .... I got the dark skin (who needs sunscreen?!)..... with blonde hair and blue eyes. Im probably bout as indian they come off the reservation .... Maybe that explains why I don't handle liquor well.

The term while historically derogatory is buried so far back in the history of this country , it just doesn't carry much meaning to me.


Context would have to be taken into consideration for me , Im not offended by a word , rather how its used.

Yvette
06-13-2013, 02:57 PM
Yet, it's becoming an issue 80 years later?
It was an issue then, among many others, but no one was listening.

Natives were first declared US citizens in 1924 but were not uniformly allowed to vote until the establishment of the 1965 Voting Rights Act.

Yvette
06-13-2013, 03:03 PM
Context would have to be taken into consideration for me , Im not offended by a word , rather how its used.
Have you ever been called a 'skin, prairie n i g g e r, or anything like that? I have :/

Corrosion
06-13-2013, 03:05 PM
Have you ever been called a 'skin, prairie n i g g e r, or anything like that? I have :/

No , but then again Im a pretty big guy .... people don't tend to offend me to my face. Its detrimental to their health.

HOU-TEX
06-13-2013, 03:06 PM
I've been called a "cracker" before. First time I'd ever heard the term and damn near passed out from laughing so hard. Have a smirk on my face by just typing this. lol

infantrycak
06-13-2013, 03:09 PM
It was an issue then, among many others, but no one was listening.

Natives were first declared US citizens in 1924 but were not uniformly allowed to vote until the establishment of the 1965 Voting Rights Act.

Which means zilch to whether a mascot name is derogatory.

Fundamental fact - mascots are chosen out of RESPECT not derision.

eriadoc
06-13-2013, 03:13 PM
Fundamental fact - mascots are chosen out of RESPECT not derision.

Which is why we don't have the Washington Liars or Washington Crooks. Or hey, now we could have them change their name to the Washington Snoops and put the NSA seal on the helmet.

IDEXAN
06-13-2013, 03:20 PM
Since Redskins owner Snyder came out just the other day and publically stated he WILL NOT change the teams name, it's gonna be interesting to see if that
solidifies or undermines support for retaining the name ?

Yvette
06-13-2013, 03:26 PM
I've been called a "cracker" before.
I don't remember the Houston Crackers being a choice when choosing the team name.

Which means zilch to whether a mascot name is derogatory.
My factoid pointed out that hardly anyone gave a damn what Indians thought back then.

Thought I'd mention that I'm not debating with any of you. I have no illusions about changing your minds. I hope you all understand I'm not wavering either.

Anyone want to celebrate with me on the 24th? We can all raise a toast together lol

Never mind! I'm late. Citizenship was on 6/2/24.

toronto
06-13-2013, 03:29 PM
Which is why we don't have the Washington Liars or Washington Crooks. Or hey, now we could have them change their name to the Washington Snoops and put the NSA seal on the helmet.

Washington Liars has a nice ring to it actually!

Corrosion
06-13-2013, 03:41 PM
Washington Liars has a nice ring to it actually!

We really need something much more derogatory and offensive if we are going to go with a political theme .... Liars is much too nice a word to describe politicians.

Rey
06-13-2013, 03:42 PM
I don't think the Redskins name was chosen as an insult. The original club name was Braves, then Red Sox and eventually Red Skins. They've always had some name dealing with Native Americans.

But I don't think that matters. If the term Redskins is seen as a derogatory name then I think they should at least consider a name change just to not offend anyone. If people aren't really offended by it, and no one cares, then leave it alone.

But if they change mascots I vote for a better version of this one:

http://www.oddee.com/_media/imgs/articles2/a96800_a499_scrotie.jpg

Without a doubt, one of the strangest college sports mascots has to be Scrotie, the unofficial mascot of the Rhode Island School of Design. The costume is unique and at the same time horrific, looking exactly like a giant penis wearing a red cape with the scrotum hanging beneath.

The school's basketball team is known as the Balls, and their slogan is, "When the heat is on, the Balls stick together." The hockey team is called the Nads, and their cheer is "Go Nads!" Scrotie was created to cheer on the Nads in 2001. Despite his status as an unofficial mascot, he's present at all the games and widely accepted by the student body. (Link)

Read more at http://www.oddee.com/item_96800.aspx#JoCu798jVl52RZEr.99

http://www.oddee.com/item_96800.aspx

Maybe they can have a female verion and name it Gina.

Dutchrudder
06-13-2013, 04:02 PM
We really need something much more derogatory and offensive if we are going to go with a political theme .... Liars is much too nice a word to describe politicians.

I think the Washington Redcoats has a nice ring to it. It's a minimal change to the existing name, so it should go over well with fans. Just gotta change the maroon to firetruck red.

eriadoc
06-13-2013, 05:18 PM
I think the Washington Redcoats has a nice ring to it. It's a minimal change to the existing name, so it should go over well with fans. Just gotta change the maroon to firetruck red.

I so wish I could rep this.

steelbtexan
06-13-2013, 05:53 PM
If you don't identify as a Native in ancestry and culture, then your opinion of Native ancestry and culture doesn't count.

Really

My great uncle on my mothers side was a full blood Alabama-Cousha. So I know I've got alot of Native blood in my family. My Dads side has a few Native Americans in his family as well.

But I guess my opinion doesn't count because A. I dont agree with you. B. I dont dwell on these kinds of thing, unlike you.

thunderkyss
06-13-2013, 06:06 PM
Actually it does matter to me.

...

Not to me.

I think I'm a worldly man. I've been all over this great country, spoken to all kinds of people. I've heard or read just about every racial pejorative there is... or at least I'd like to think so. I've never heard anyone refer to anyone as a 'skin, I've never heard anyone denigrate anyone using the word "Redskin"

I've heard the pejoratives for Native Americans. Several of them. Never Redskin or 'skin.

To me, this is akin to me waking up tomorrow & saying I find it offensive when people call me a "Bad Mofo"


Now Redman.... I think he should change his name.

thunderkyss
06-13-2013, 06:14 PM
Fundamental fact - mascots are chosen out of RESPECT not derision.

A little ot..... not the same thing, but kinda

What do you think about Uncle Kracker? Do you think white folk find that offensive (I'm assuming you're white folk).

Dan B.
06-13-2013, 06:15 PM
Which means zilch to whether a mascot name is derogatory.

Fundamental fact - mascots are chosen out of RESPECT not derision.

They are chosen to sell jerseys. That's why there is a team called the Nads. It's not out of respect for Nads.

George Marshall bought the Boston Braves and changed the team name to the more offensive term of "Redskins" out of respect? Come on -- at BEST it's a draw as to which name is more inflammatory, and I'm pretty sure on a scale of 1-10 Redskin falls way further down than Braves.

BTW George Marshall was the last guy in football to integrate his team, even when they were a disaster through the 1950's. There's evidence that he was a major force behind the NFL's sudden resegregation in 1933, the year after he bought the Braves. He expressly ordered in his will that his foundation not spend any money on “any purpose which supports or employs the principle of racial integration in any form." He made his "respected" coach dress up in Indian war dress for games (http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2011/nov/10/racist-redskins/?pagination=false). You think Belichek would tolerate that?

thunderkyss
06-13-2013, 06:23 PM
They are chosen to sell jerseys. That's why there is a team called the Nads. It's not out of respect for Nads.


Redskins
Cowboys
Oilers
Pirates
Patriots
Raiders
Chiefs
49ers
Packers (<-- that's offensive)
Vikings
Buccaneers

All need to change their name before someone finds their "mascot" offensive. Throw Cardinals in there too, ya never know with them Catholics.

infantrycak
06-13-2013, 06:25 PM
A little ot..... not the same thing, but kinda

What do you think about Uncle Kracker? Do you think white folk find that offensive (I'm assuming you're white folk).

I never thought about it at all.

They are chosen to sell jerseys. That's why there is a team called the Nads. It's not out of respect for Nads.

George Marshall bought the Boston Braves and changed the team name to the more offensive term of "Redskins" out of respect?

Get serious. Like there was some overwhelming anti-Indian demographic when they selected the name which was going to sell more jerseys. That is just ridiculous.

I am sure Marshall was trying to piss off his Indian head coach with a derogatory term.

Dan B.
06-13-2013, 06:34 PM
I never thought about it at all.



Get serious. Like there was some overwhelming anti-Indian demographic when they selected the name which was going to sell more jerseys. That is just ridiculous.

I am sure Marshall was trying to piss off his Indian head coach with a derogatory term.

Right -- it's just comical to suggest that a pro sports owner in the 1930's didn't respect minorities. Even in 1933, you don't think there were other options besides "Redskins" that might be a little less inflammatory?

Would you support it if we did it here? Say the Texans hired a half Hispanic head coach and McNair made him dress up in a 10 foot sombrero and poncho during games. Then he's sitting around thinking of a new team name for the Texans to honor Texas' Hispanic roots and their new coach:

"Well, we could name them the Matadors, the Warriors, the Vaqueros, or the Wetbacks."
"Hmm... let's go with Wetbacks. that sounds like the most respectful and honorable name."

75 years later, that name would still suck.

George Marshall bought the Redskins in 1932 and owned them until he died in 1969. How many other Native Americans did he honor besides the coach he fired in 1934? What about the other three plus decades, when he was going out of his way to trumpet his racism (playing "Dixie" before the "Star Spangled Banner")? If he was so eager to honor Native Americans he had a great chance to do so -- owning a team where no other race was apparently allowed employment. Why not at least hire Jim Thorpe for PR -- who actually played for the Boston Braves before Marshall bought them?

Dan B.
06-13-2013, 06:57 PM
Redskins
Cowboys
Oilers
Pirates
Patriots
Raiders
Chiefs
49ers
Packers (<-- that's offensive)
Vikings
Buccaneers

All need to change their name before someone finds their "mascot" offensive. Throw Cardinals in there too, ya never know with them Catholics.

More like someone buying the team, changing the name from Cardinals to Mackerel Snappers, and then claiming it was out of respect for Catholics.

Corrosion
06-13-2013, 07:05 PM
I think the Washington Redcoats has a nice ring to it. It's a minimal change to the existing name, so it should go over well with fans. Just gotta change the maroon to firetruck red.

I was thinking the Washington Terrorists.

PapaL
06-13-2013, 07:29 PM
My 2 cents...until the state of Oklahoma changes it's name, the Redskins should not change theirs. Redskins is offensive but red people isn't?

Yvette
06-13-2013, 07:40 PM
But I guess my opinion doesn't count because ...
You're not cultural. At least I didn't read anything that indicates otherwise.

I'm sure there are cultural Indians who don't agree with me. Their opinion absolutely matters to me.

Lurvinator11
06-13-2013, 07:44 PM
I voted Yes, only because I understand the offensive nature that native American can claim.

Saying that though, if the Redskins were to change their name, then at the very least, I feel like the other Native American themed teams should change their name. That's a lot of trouble to go through, spanning over every major league in the country.

So, it should be changed based on the offending nature to Native Americans, however, I don't think it will be changed. If it was, it would have already happened.

Thorn
06-13-2013, 08:23 PM
After reading what Yvette has to say, I can see where some would be offended.

At some point in time though, we have to get past this racial crap and realize we are all one species. Some humans will never understand this however. Narrow-mindedness is something we humans excel at. And we use this against each other while we champion our own version of the "truth".

We are so good at that crap its a wonder we still exist.

thunderkyss
06-13-2013, 08:40 PM
I was thinking the Washington Terrorists.

Uh.. I think the idea is to go politically correct.

Washington Saudis

The Pencil Neck
06-13-2013, 09:27 PM
A little ot..... not the same thing, but kinda

What do you think about Uncle Kracker? Do you think white folk find that offensive (I'm assuming you're white folk).

No.

OTOH, isn't that the name for people from Florida?

OTOOH, I didn't even know kracker was supposed to be a derogatory term until I was into my 30's.

HOU-TEX
06-14-2013, 10:11 AM
The Washington Asshats

Their mascot
http://www.ogman.net/asshat.jpg

Corrosion
06-14-2013, 10:18 AM
The Washington Asshats

Their mascot


You could use a picture of this guy (http://www.texanstalk.com/forums/member.php?u=424)?!!

Rey
06-14-2013, 10:29 AM
They are chosen to sell jerseys. That's why there is a team called the Nads. It's not out of respect for Nads.

George Marshall bought the Boston Braves and changed the team name to the more offensive term of "Redskins" out of respect? Come on -- at BEST it's a draw as to which name is more inflammatory, and I'm pretty sure on a scale of 1-10 Redskin falls way further down than Braves.

BTW George Marshall was the last guy in football to integrate his team, even when they were a disaster through the 1950's. There's evidence that he was a major force behind the NFL's sudden resegregation in 1933, the year after he bought the Braves. He expressly ordered in his will that his foundation not spend any money on “any purpose which supports or employs the principle of racial integration in any form." He made his "respected" coach dress up in Indian war dress for games (http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2011/nov/10/racist-redskins/?pagination=false). You think Belichek would tolerate that?

Good information.

I don't really understand the respect angle....There are a few reasons mascots/team names can be chosen...

Rey
06-14-2013, 10:36 AM
Right -- it's just comical to suggest that a pro sports owner in the 1930's didn't respect minorities. Even in 1933, you don't think there were other options besides "Redskins" that might be a little less inflammatory?

Would you support it if we did it here? Say the Texans hired a half Hispanic head coach and McNair made him dress up in a 10 foot sombrero and poncho during games. Then he's sitting around thinking of a new team name for the Texans to honor Texas' Hispanic roots and their new coach:

"Well, we could name them the Matadors, the Warriors, the Vaqueros, or the Wetbacks."
"Hmm... let's go with Wetbacks. that sounds like the most respectful and honorable name."

75 years later, that name would still suck.

George Marshall bought the Redskins in 1932 and owned them until he died in 1969. How many other Native Americans did he honor besides the coach he fired in 1934? What about the other three plus decades, when he was going out of his way to trumpet his racism (playing "Dixie" before the "Star Spangled Banner")? If he was so eager to honor Native Americans he had a great chance to do so -- owning a team where no other race was apparently allowed employment. Why not at least hire Jim Thorpe for PR -- who actually played for the Boston Braves before Marshall bought them

Another good post.

Seems that Marshall may have chosen the team name to create a carnival/side show type atmosphere around his team. Doesn't seem like it came from a place or respect at all.

HOU-TEX
06-14-2013, 10:38 AM
You could a picture of this guy (http://www.texanstalk.com/forums/member.php?u=424)?!!

Good call

Speedy
06-14-2013, 05:12 PM
Just don't change the best logo in all of sports.

http://images.yuku.com.s3.amazonaws.com/image/jpeg/b5935d2e41247c5cffa45f204a83def71fc9f67.jpg

Hookem Horns
06-14-2013, 05:28 PM
I voted yes and have no problem admitting that. I also feel things have gone way too PC, however Redskin is to most Native Americans the same as the word n*gger to blacks.

Yeah, I practically spelled it out to get the point across.

How about start a hockey team in North Dakota and call them the North Dakota N*ggers? Sure, North Dakota is primarly made up of whites and Native Americans. The black population is small there but that doesn't matter does it? It's just a team name. Also there would be zero to very few black players on the team, however the name would not be meant to be offensive. It would celebrate the history of black people in this country.

You know what, let's not be THAT offensive. Let's call them instead the North Dakota Sambos. That would be less controversial.

How about Sambo the mascot? They would have this crest on their jerseys ...

http://img37.imageshack.us/img37/8899/txjx.jpg

Probably after 80 years everyone would be used to the name and no one would think of it as being a racist slur. You would just think hockey in North Dakota.

If you voted NO to changing the Redskins name, please explain why you would be against the North Dakota Sambos? That is, IF you would be against it.

Carry on.

thunderkyss
06-14-2013, 07:03 PM
How about Sambo the mascot? They would have this crest on their jerseys ...

http://img37.imageshack.us/img37/8899/txjx.jpg


Can you find a similar example using the word 'Redskin'?

infantrycak
06-14-2013, 07:25 PM
I voted yes and have no problem admitting that. I also feel things have gone way too PC, however Redskin is to most Native Americans the same as the word n*gger to blacks.

Except for the fact redskin is more akin to black than n*gger.

Outside of this conversation look around this message board or in society generally and people routinely talk about black, white, yellow, brown and red skinned people. It is a factual demarcation.

To Dan B, I am sorry but back in that day you can't say against integration for one race means against for all. Jim Thorpe was the 1st AFPA president (which became NFL). There were a lot (relative to the population) of Indian players in the NFL. Integration for Indians was not the same as integration for blacks. Marshall was specifically anti-black. The 1933 NFL order was specifically anti-black. FYI-the Boston Braves Thorpe played for was the baseball team not Marshall's football team.

Yvette
06-14-2013, 08:37 PM
Except for the fact redskin is more akin to black than n*gger.

In your opinion as a NAI, what is more akin to n*gger?

Pollardized
06-14-2013, 09:04 PM
I'm half Indian.... From the Slap-a-ho tribe... I'm not offended by the Redskins name...

infantrycak
06-14-2013, 09:07 PM
In your opinion as a NAI, what is more akin to n*gger?

Well you certainly supplied one I had never heard the other day - prairie n*gger. But that is derivative.

I honestly can't think of a similar for Indians, maybe you can supply some. Somebody will come up with one and I will go "duh" but off the top of my head, no.

Is this derogatory also?

http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcR6nG9HcDfAjsQy-1PH1OTqDmexoUQRAtyCpxS_XJ6BDZfTSZgVVA

Hervoyel
06-14-2013, 09:44 PM
I'm going to go ahead and say what I'm thinking. "Get over it".

We can sit around debating which term is more hurtful or derogatory for as long as we want to but it's not going to change the fact that at some point in time you get to the "Time to get on with life" stage and quit worrying about what a football team is called. The Redskins are not rolling that name out every single season with the desire to be racist or hurtful and maybe it's time for the Native American portion of the eternally butt-hurt American population who have a problem with the name to learn to ignore it or even worse embrace it. It's a widely held belief that the best revenge is getting over something and going on to be happy in spite of it.

It's not explicitly racist today and today is where we live. Now. It is a name that conjures up the image of a Native American warrior to most. I'd warrant that for most people it is nearly interchangeable with "Braves". Words meanings change with time and always have. I have no way of understanding why someone who lives in this day and age would be offended by something that is overwhelmingly embraced in a positive way like "Redskins" is by NFL fans of that team. My family is of Scots-Irish origin and of course at some point in history the Irish took their share of grief from the English (and Americans) as did the Scots. There are as many derogatory terms for the Irish as there are for probably any people on earth and today it just doesn't matter. Life goes on. Get over it.

"Redskins" doesn't really matter either. Ok, it matters to a few but only because they won't let it go and choose to obsess over it and a past that nearly no one alive today experienced.

thunderkyss
06-14-2013, 10:20 PM
Well you certainly supplied one I had never heard the other day - prairie n*gger. But that is derivative.

I honestly can't think of a similar for Indians, maybe you can supply some. Somebody will come up with one and I will go "duh" but off the top of my head, no.

Is this derogatory also?

http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcR6nG9HcDfAjsQy-1PH1OTqDmexoUQRAtyCpxS_XJ6BDZfTSZgVVA

Navaho....

Remember in Young Guns Dirty Steve (Dermot Mulroney) kept calling Chavez (Lou Diamond Phillips) a Navaho? That was his derogatory term. I know it's just a movie, but it's a reflection of who we are, or who we were.

We've heard all the racial epitaphs for all ethnic groups in the movies. I've never heard Redskin. I've heard Red Man, but again, like you said its been more like saying "black man" or "Afro American"

Like I said earlier, I've been all over the country & I've never heard "Redskin" used like the N word. Never.

I've heard "prarie nigha" but usually it's "dirty Injun" or "filthy Injun" or something similar.

I'm not Native American, but I wonder if we've gotten to the point where Native Americans do find it offensive because they've been told they should.

Giant Tiger
06-14-2013, 10:25 PM
Ottawa's new CFL team will be called the RedBlacks. Just saying.

http://ca.sports.yahoo.com/blogs/cfl-55-yard-line/ottawa-redblacks-name-officially-unveiled-saturday-ceremony-history-194814880.html

http://www.ottawaredblacks.com/

Yvette
06-14-2013, 10:37 PM
I'm going to go ahead and say what I'm thinking. "Get over it".

It's not explicitly racist today and today is where we live.
I don't ever talk about it until it comes up. I don'y hardly think about it all because they're NFC. We play them this year in the preseason and I have no idea how much attention I'll give to it.

It's not explicitly racist to you, but it is to me. I don't expect you to care how I feel. Please don't expect me to care how you feel, either.


I'm not Native American, but I wonder if we've gotten to the point where Native Americans do find it offensive because they've been told they should.
No one told my great grandparents, grandparents, and parents that they should, but they did. None of them ever told me I should, either.

But the people who called me and my family members names and spoke to, treated us with contempt? They did.

The people that beat and abused my family in the boarding schools? They did.

No one had to tell me it was offensive.

It's been my experience for people to tell me I shouldn't be offended.

This thread is a perfect example.

Pollardized
06-14-2013, 10:55 PM
I am a big supporter of the Indian nation. Hell I give the Coushattas at least $2000.00 to $3000.00 every month...

infantrycak
06-14-2013, 11:14 PM
Navaho....

Remember in Young Guns Dirty Steve (Dermot Mulroney) kept calling Chavez (Lou Diamond Phillips) a Navaho? That was his derogatory term. I know it's just a movie, but it's a reflection of who we are, or who we were.

Are you trying to be funny? Navajos are the largest of the yvette Federally recognized peoples.

Sorry but Young Guns is reflective of nothing and you really don't want to get into a war of all the positive references to Indians from much earlier - Josey Wales and Ten Bears - Link (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1xd3Eawz5VI)

Hervoyel
06-14-2013, 11:41 PM
I don't ever talk about it until it comes up. I don'y hardly think about it all because they're NFC. We play them this year in the preseason and I have no idea how much attention I'll give to it.

It's not explicitly racist to you, but it is to me. I don't expect you to care how I feel. Please don't expect me to care how you feel, either.


No one told my great grandparents, grandparents, and parents that they should, but they did. None of them ever told me I should, either.

But the people who called me and my family members names and spoke to, treated us with contempt? They did.

The people that beat and abused my family in the boarding schools? They did.

No one had to tell me it was offensive.

It's been my experience for people to tell me I shouldn't be offended.

This thread is a perfect example.

Well, it's racist to you because you've chosen to see it that way. If I were you I'd get over it but that's just how I feel about things of that nature and I understand that you don't care how I feel.

The best revenge is of course living well and happily. Hope you can get over all the things that have been done to you and yours and see the world in a clearer light. If you've had a lot of people tell you that you shouldn't be offended maybe they're on to something?

thunderkyss
06-14-2013, 11:49 PM
Are you trying to be funny? Navajos are the largest of the yvette Federally recognized peoples.

Sorry but Young Guns is reflective of nothing and you really don't want to get into a war of all the positive references to Indians from much earlier - Josey Wales and Ten Bears - Link (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1xd3Eawz5VI)

No, not trying to be funny. I just think if "Redskins" was used as a racial epitaph we'd have heard it in the movies like every other pejorative. My point with Young Guns, is that what I've heard is pretty much what was said in that movie. It wasn't a particular word like "Redskin" but it was the way they said common words Navaho, or the adjectives they used for Indian.

Yvette
06-15-2013, 12:18 AM
The best revenge is of course living well and happily.

If you've had a lot of people tell you that you shouldn't be offended maybe they're on to something?
I live very well and I'm pretty darn happy, but not out of revenge. I've not ever liked revenge as motivation.

The only people that have ever told me I shouldn't be offended about anything related to ethnicity, have been Caucasian men. Weird, huh?

Take care and God bless :)

Lucky
06-15-2013, 12:26 AM
If you've had a lot of people tell you that you shouldn't be offended maybe they're on to something?
Or maybe "a lot of people" just don't know WTF they're talking about? There's a lot of that going on.

Anyone of intelligence clearly understands that the term redskins was a racist epithat. It's not viewed that way so much any longer because...well they aren't that many "redskins" left. And while no one alive had anything to do the near annihilation of the native American population, I don't think it is something that should be dismissed as trivial and forgotten.

If the NFL changed the name to a native tribe, that could show honor and respect. They don't want to, because it would cost a lot of $$$ in re-branding. But, they should do it. Not because it's "politically correct". But, because it's just plainly the right thing to do.

CloakNNNdagger
06-15-2013, 12:29 AM
No matter what side of the issue you stand, this historical piece regarding Marshal, his issues, the team name and its related controversies is worthwhile reading.

Showdown: JFK and the Integration of the Washington Redskins (http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2011/nov/10/racist-redskins/)

infantrycak
06-15-2013, 12:49 AM
Anyone of intelligence clearly understands that the term redskins was a racist epithat. It's not viewed that way so much any longer because...well they aren't that many "redskins" left.

Well or because racial epithet and racist epithat are two entirely different things. Black man is a racial epithet - it is neither positive nor negative. N*gger is a racist epithat (whatever that is).

By the way was "white men" or "whiteskins" a racist epithat back in the 20's and 30's? Last I checked there were still plenty of "whiteskins" left then and they were even in charge of Hollywood.

Hervoyel
06-15-2013, 01:02 AM
Or maybe "a lot of people" just don't know WTF they're talking about? There's a lot of that going on.

Anyone of intelligence clearly understands that the term redskins was a racist epithat. It's not viewed that way so much any longer because...well they aren't that many "redskins" left. And while no one alive had anything to do the near annihilation of the native American population, I don't think it is something that should be dismissed as trivial and forgotten.

If the NFL changed the name to a native tribe, that could show honor and respect. They don't want to, because it would cost a lot of $$$ in re-branding. But, they should do it. Not because it's "politically correct". But, because it's just plainly the right thing to do.

No, I think they have a point. I disagree with you almost entirely here and it's not from a lack of intelligence. I think you're off your rocker where you talk about the NFL not rebranding because it costs lots of money. The NFL would be fine with selling every Redskins fan a whole new kit of gear and the money they'd make from it would dwarf the cost to the team and league to change their name. It would cost no more (relative to inflation) than it cost Bud Adams to change from Oilers to Titans. The NFL would rebrand a team every year if they thought they could get away with it.

Nice roundabout way of calling me stupid because I don't agree with you on this by the way. The NFL should not change this name. Shouldn't even consider it or dignify the conversation with a response. What needs to change is the thickness of the average American's skin.

Lucky
06-15-2013, 01:03 AM
Well or because racial epithet and racist epithat are two entirely different things. Black man is a racial epithet - it is neither positive nor negative. N*gger is a racist epithat (whatever that is).
You're trying to equate "Redskins" to "Black Man" pretty hard. "Black man" is a term that African Americans use to describe themselves. Don't think many Native Americans call themselves "Redskins".

infantrycak
06-15-2013, 01:13 AM
You're trying to equate "Redskins" to "Black Man" pretty hard. "Black man" is a term that African Americans use to describe themselves. Don't think many Native Americans call themselves "Redskins".

Please be serious. Throughout time in every language which has ever existed peoples meeting each other have described one another with color references. Black man is not some term "African Americans" came up with to describe themselves. Everyone regards themselves as normal and describes everyone different.

Lucky
06-15-2013, 01:15 AM
Nice roundabout way of calling me stupid because I don't agree with you on this by the way.
Not stupid. The term would be obstinate. You know that "redskins" was a racist term. But it doesn't bother you, now. Therefore, it shouldn't bother anyone. Are you denying that "redskins" is considered a derogatory term?

Lucky
06-15-2013, 01:22 AM
Please be serious.
I am being serious. Please let's not be condescending. "Redskins" was never before used any any way other than derogatory until it became associated with the NFL's team.

infantrycak
06-15-2013, 01:28 AM
I am being serious. Please let's not be condescending. "Redskins" was never before used any any way other than derogatory until it became associated with the NFL's team.

Kind of a bold assertion since the etymology of redskins isn't even known. Some historians say the earliest references are to body paints not skin color. I don't think the NFL existed in the 17th century. I'm having a hard time deciphering your last sentence. Are you trying to say Redskins was not derogatory until Washington chose it as their mascot?

In all honesty I grew up a Cowboys fan so I hate the Redskins. I just think this is stupid.

Dan B.
06-15-2013, 02:17 AM
Except for the fact redskin is more akin to black than n*gger.

Outside of this conversation look around this message board or in society generally and people routinely talk about black, white, yellow, brown and red skinned people. It is a factual demarcation.

To Dan B, I am sorry but back in that day you can't say against integration for one race means against for all. Jim Thorpe was the 1st AFPA president (which became NFL). There were a lot (relative to the population) of Indian players in the NFL. Integration for Indians was not the same as integration for blacks. Marshall was specifically anti-black. The 1933 NFL order was specifically anti-black. FYI-the Boston Braves Thorpe played for was the baseball team not Marshall's football team.

I can absolutely say that George Marshall was against racial integration of any type. Because he stipulated in his will that the Redskins trust not spend money on "any purpose which supports or employs the principle of racial integration in any form." If he only hated one race, he would have specified.

There may have been a lot of Native American players in the NFL. But there weren't a lot of Native American (Or Black, Asian, or Hispanic) players on the Redskins. They were all white. For 30 years.

If you've got a few minutes check out this 40 page preview of (http://books.google.com/books?id=Isj8cHpz3zQC&printsec=frontcover&dq=isbn:0595171672&hl=en&sa=X&ei=dgG8UYmoH5HU8wT-r4HoBQ&ved=0CC8Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false) a 2001 book about the issue. The author doesn't take either side and presents an interesting look at the history of the term "Redskin," as well as a history of the fight to change the name of the team. I thought it was interesting that Snyder changed the name of the area the Redskins play in from Raljon, Maryland (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raljon,_Maryland)back to Landover -- because the residents were offended that Jack Kent Cooke named the spot for his sons. There's also some interesting quotes in the preview from newspaper editorials, etc. around the turn of the century using the term "Redskin." It's not in a flattering light.

Grams
06-15-2013, 08:19 AM
I grew up in the Northeast. My children are either 1/16 or 1/whatever Native American from some tribe up there. (not sure which - on my ex's side of the family)

I am 60+ years old and the only think I think of when I hear the word "Redskin" is the Washington Redskin's football team.

I don't care what color skin anyone has - white, black, red, blue, pink with purple polka-dots. Native means belonging to a particular place by birth. So that makes me a Native American along with my parents, and my children and my grandchildren, along with anyone else who was born in American - no matter what color skin anyone has.

People are people - no matter the color of one's skin. There are good and bad in all colors. There is also a lot of stupidity running rampant in this word.

One has to be taught to be a racist.

If we would spend the time on teaching our kids that people are just the same even if they are different colors, or different religions, or look different, or are handicapped, we all would benefit greatly and racism and bulling would stop.

Grams
06-15-2013, 08:37 AM
Another good post.

Seems that Marshall may have chosen the team name to create a carnival/side show type atmosphere around his team. Doesn't seem like it came from a place or respect at all.

The team originated as the Boston Braves, based in Boston, Massachusetts, in 1932. At the time the team played in Braves Field, the home field 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. The Redskins relocated to Washington, D.C. in 1937. In their early years in Washington, the Redskins shared Griffith Stadium with the Washington Senators baseball team.[7]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boston_Braves_(NFL)

Blake
06-15-2013, 08:58 AM
Aren't sports team names & mascots generally chosen because they represent the city/people, or are majestic, respected, or fierce?

I have always felt that teams chose Native American type names and symbols out of respect to their fierceness in combat.

I would think the bigger issue would be the Cleveland Indians mascot. I could see a Native American seeing a caricature of an Indian and getting offended.

While were at it, shouldnt the Irish Americans be outraged by the "Fighting Irish" of Notre Dame?

infantrycak
06-15-2013, 09:55 AM
I can absolutely say that George Marshall was against racial integration of any type. Because he stipulated in his will that the Redskins trust not spend money on "any purpose which supports or employs the principle of racial integration in any form." If he only hated one race, he would have specified.

No you can't. You can surmise at best. At the time the only integration at issue was blacks. If the NFL had wanted to ban everyone but whites their ban would have said no non-whites. It didn't. It said no blacks.

Indians have always been a part of the NFL. One of the original teams was all Indian. Coincidentally their colors were burgandy, gold and white - sound familiar?

If you've got a few minutes check out this 40 page preview of (http://books.google.com/books?id=Isj8cHpz3zQC&printsec=frontcover&dq=isbn:0595171672&hl=en&sa=X&ei=dgG8UYmoH5HU8wT-r4HoBQ&ved=0CC8Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false) a 2001 book about the issue.

Cool so you provided a source for the term not having a racist origin as Europeans thought the Indians were white and merely tanned or dyed by habitual painting.

We can hack this thing around but I just don't get it. Indian mascots were very popular in that time period. I just don't buy that anything derogatory was ever meant by it.

CloakNNNdagger
06-15-2013, 10:25 AM
Indians have always been a part of the NFL. One of the original teams was all Indian. Coincidentally their colors were burgandy, gold and white - sound familiar?


I never knew that before now.

Oorang Indians (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oorang_Indians)

Dan B.
06-15-2013, 12:47 PM
No you can't. You can surmise at best. At the time the only integration at issue was blacks. If the NFL had wanted to ban everyone but whites their ban would have said no non-whites. It didn't. It said no blacks.

So if Marshall wanted other races to play on his team, they could have? Why didn't they?

Indians have always been a part of the NFL. One of the original teams was all Indian. Coincidentally their colors were burgandy, gold and white - sound familiar?


That might explain why the team he bought already had a Native American mascot and already wore those colors. He didn't change the name or colors to honor Native Americans. If mascots honored their depiction then the name already honored Native Americans. Why change it?

That was also the era when the NFL had African Americans.

Then Marshall bought a team.


Cool so you provided a source for the term not having a racist origin as Europeans thought the Indians were white and merely tanned or dyed by habitual painting.

I could also provide a source that says Jewish Americans originally used the word "kike" to differentiate themselves from Jewish immigrants or that "coolie" was just a descriptive term and not a perjorative in the 1850's. How does that mean the words aren't offensive today?

We can hack this thing around but I just don't get it. Indian mascots were very popular in that time period. I just don't buy that anything derogatory was ever meant by it.

Amos and Andy style vaudeville skits were very popular in that time period. I don't buy that they meant anything derogatory with it. It was just entertainment. But it was still insensitive.

CretorFrigg
06-15-2013, 12:53 PM
Good posts from Yvette. It's exactly the reason why I believe the Redskins need to change their name.

It reminds me of a high school team in Illinois that was called the Pekin Chinks. It won't be long before we look back at the Redskins and look at that name with the same disgust.

infantrycak
06-15-2013, 01:13 PM
If mascots honored their depiction then the name already honored Native Americans. Why change it?

Dan, c'mon, that one takes no research at all and had no racism involved. You already made the mistake in this thread of confusing two teams named the Boston Braves.

Dan B.
06-15-2013, 01:26 PM
Dan, c'mon, that one takes no research at all and had no racism involved. You already made the mistake in this thread of confusing two teams named the Boston Braves.

I know why they changed it. I just wanted you to have to type out "he wanted to sell jerseys."

It wasn't to honor Native Americans. They were honored (such as it is) with the previous name. It was marketing. And whatever else Marshall may have been, he was a savvy marketer. Marketing isn't about honoring or respecting anyone with your product. It's about the $$$.

And which Braves team Thorpe played for has no bearing on my point. If Marshall wanted to honor Native Americans from the 20's that played NFL football he could have. There are a lot of ways to honor another culture or group, particularly when you run a professional team. We don't honor the troops by having people do vaudeville skits. We pay them respect. Can you point to any moves he made that were honoring Native tribes between roughly the Depression and the Korean War?

infantrycak
06-15-2013, 01:33 PM
I know why they changed it. I just wanted you to have to type out "he wanted to sell jerseys."

I'm sorry but that is just made up BS unless you have some support. The NFL was not big money at the time and it was the great depression.

Can you point to any moves he made that were honoring Native tribes between roughly the Depression and the Korean War?

Well he had an Indian head coach and 4 or 5 Indian players. Neither you nor I know what may have been done at games to honor Indians similar to what the Texans do at games for veterans so neither of us should pretend we do.

Dan B.
06-15-2013, 02:15 PM
I'm sorry but that is just made up BS unless you have some support. The NFL was not big money at the time and it was the great depression.

They were an expansion team called the Braves that played at Boston Braves field. Seems kind of obvious that would lead to confusion at the time (even 8 decades later in fact :)). If you don't think he changed the name and home field to differentiate themselves as a brand, why do you think he did it?



Well he had an Indian head coach and 4 or 5 Indian players. Neither you nor I know what may have been done at games to honor Indians similar to what the Texans do at games for veterans so neither of us should pretend we do.
Actually that may not be accurate. There's quite a bit of evidence that the coach he dressed in a feathered headdress on the sidelines was not actually Native American. (http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/ictarchives/2004/07/07/reclaiming-james-one-star-part-one-93743) (Parts 2-5 here (http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/advanced/search?fq[0]=tm_vid_1_names%3Ajames%20one%20star&fq[1]=label%3AReclaiming%20James%20One%20Star)) He spent a month in jail in 1919 (http://nmai.si.edu/sites/1/files/pdf/seminars-symposia/WaggonerWEBSpr2013.pdf) for fraudulently taking a missing Indian war veteran's identity (James One Star) in order to avoid the draft, since Native Americans were non citizens and exempt. If he was of Indian heritage, why did he have to steal another Indian man's identity to appear Indian? He was also fired as head coach of Purdue in 1922 for illegal recruiting. That's the man Marshall wanted to honor Native American culture.

BTW those players had to practice war chants for the crowd before games, and all were gone by 1934, well before the team moved to DC. The Texans held on to Bennie Joppru for longer than that -- guess we just respected him more.

Hookem Horns
06-15-2013, 04:26 PM
Well you certainly supplied one I had never heard the other day - prairie n*gger. But that is derivative.

I honestly can't think of a similar for Indians, maybe you can supply some. Somebody will come up with one and I will go "duh" but off the top of my head, no.

Is this derogatory also?

http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcR6nG9HcDfAjsQy-1PH1OTqDmexoUQRAtyCpxS_XJ6BDZfTSZgVVA

What do you think would happen if someone came out with a product and called it "Black Man" with a cartoon picture of a black guy on the label? Do you really think that would fly??

I don't mean this in a harsh way, however you are pretty ignorant to this subject (as are most in this country, self included) because you don't live in a state with a high population of Native Americans.

Go live in the Dakotas for awhile and you will get more familiar with these words and redskin is right in there with prairie n*gger, buffalo jockey, etc.

Here is a list http://www.rsdb.org/race/native_americans

I have two friends that grew up around reservations, one lives in South Dakota and the other is from Montana. They both told me that "redskin" is often used as an insult when referring to Native Americans.

What's obvious in this country is, as a minority group you only get the "sensitive" treatment if you are vocal. Black leaders have been the most vocal and it's to the point where that if you are not black and are referring to their race you have to use "kid gloves", especially in the media or you will get fired.

In my opinion, if we are going to be extremely sensitive with one minority group why don't the rest get the same treatment? Why is the black race the only one that can be extremely sensitive and no one has an issue with that?

As for those saying "redskin" doesn't mean anything derogatory to me so it shouldn't matter what others think. OK, then can Southerners have their Confederate flags back?

To most Southern folks the Confederate flag was symbol of Southern culture, Southern pride (not white), a tribute to the soldiers that lost their lives defending their homeland, etc. Growing up I personally never saw it as a racist symbol. So should we not care what black people think and make it a popular symbol again in the South as it was in the 80's and back?

infantrycak
06-15-2013, 04:31 PM
I don't mean this in a harsh way, however you are pretty ignorant to this subject (as are most in this country, self included) because you don't live in a state with a high population of Native Americans.

Yeah, wrong. My step-father grew up on a reservation and his mom taught her whole life there. I certainly won't claim to know every regional custom though.

What do you think would happen if someone came out with a product and called it "Black Man" with a cartoon picture of a black guy on the label? Do you really think that would fly??

What's your point? Was the tobacco company choosing some derogatory caricature of Indians for marketing? - no. Indians are associated with introducing us to tobacco. There is nothing negative about it. If you come up with something legitimately similar for Black Man then talk to me. Otherwise it is just a false argument. But to emphasize the point one more time, the stuffy possibly racist owners of the tobacco company did not choose their name to be derogatory.

The Pencil Neck
06-15-2013, 06:08 PM
Does anybody remember Little Black Sambo? I loved that book when I was a kid.

When the author originally wrote that book (back in the late 1800's) from what I understand, she wasn't trying to be derogatory. The story itself took place in Southern India and Sambo wasn't African-American, he was Tamil (which is a nationality/group of people in India). But that didn't stop the book from becoming perceived as racist over time in most places (except Japan, for some reason.)

There was a chain of restaurants from the 60's called Sambo's (based off the names of the owners Sam and Bo) and the racist perception of the name Sambo led to the chain closing down in the early 80's.

And then there's the evolution of the word "gay" from happy to homosexual.

So, for me, the original intent of the name, whether it was meant to be good or bad, doesn't really matter.

Unfortunately, with Racism, the majority can't tell how the minority feels and can't tell the minority how they should feel.

I'm an aging white male but I've had brushes with racism because my name is frequently perceived to be that of a black man. When I was a kid (back in the 60's), my mother tried to enroll me (over the phone) in a "swim club" that all my friends were joining. When the Swim Club denied me entrance over some obviously BS reason, my mom got pissed and we went over there so she could give them a piece of her mind. When they saw us, they actually said, "Oh. You're white. No problem, then. Sign here."

I've seen and experienced similar things since then. So I know it's out there and I know that for the most part, the majority doesn't see it and can't quite conceive that it's actually there.

The minority (whatever that minority is) can get overly touchy and start to perceive slights and insults where none were intended but they get that way not because they're paranoid and overly sensitive, but because they've had to endure this sort of BS.

BUT... like Sambo... something like "The Redskins" or "The Braves" isn't going to change until those words start to be perceived by large swathes of the community as an insult. And there are nowhere near enough people who perceive it that way at this time.

Personally, when I was growing up, I always wanted to be an American Indian. When we played Cowboys and Indians, I was the Indian. My dad swore up and down that we were about 1/8th Mingo Iroquois but I'm pretty sure he was saying that just to be cool.

TEXANRED
06-15-2013, 06:40 PM
Kind of a bold assertion since the etymology of redskins isn't even known. Some historians say the earliest references are to body paints not skin color. I don't think the NFL existed in the 17th century. I'm having a hard time deciphering your last sentence. Are you trying to say Redskins was not derogatory until Washington chose it as their mascot?

In all honesty I grew up a Cowboys fan so I hate the Redskins. I just think this is stupid.

I am offended by that.

CloakNNNdagger
06-15-2013, 08:02 PM
What do you think would happen if someone came out with a product and called it "Black Man" with a cartoon picture of a black guy on the label? Do you really think that would fly??

I don't mean this in a harsh way, however you are pretty ignorant to this subject (as are most in this country, self included) because you don't live in a state with a high population of Native Americans.

Go live in the Dakotas for awhile and you will get more familiar with these words and redskin is right in there with prairie n*gger, buffalo jockey, etc.

Here is a list http://www.rsdb.org/race/native_americans

I have two friends that grew up around reservations, one lives in South Dakota and the other is from Montana. They both told me that "redskin" is often used as an insult when referring to Native Americans.

What's obvious in this country is, as a minority group you only get the "sensitive" treatment if you are vocal. Black leaders have been the most vocal and it's to the point where that if you are not black and are referring to their race you have to use "kid gloves", especially in the media or you will get fired.

In my opinion, if we are going to be extremely sensitive with one minority group why don't the rest get the same treatment? Why is the black race the only one that can be extremely sensitive and no one has an issue with that?

As for those saying "redskin" doesn't mean anything derogatory to me so it shouldn't matter what others think. OK, then can Southerners have their Confederate flags back?

To most Southern folks the Confederate flag was symbol of Southern culture, Southern pride (not white), a tribute to the soldiers that lost their lives defending their homeland, etc. Growing up I personally never saw it as a racist symbol. So should we not care what black people think and make it a popular symbol again in the South as it was in the 80's and back?

These, for whatever reasons, evidently have come and gone.

http://www.aubreysantiques.com/tinlongtom1june27-2010.JPG[20's-30's]

http://collections.richmondhistorycenter.com/getimg.php?wm=no&loc=D%3A%2Fimages%2FIMG_2012%5C&fn=I_V_2012_04_287.jpg [50's-70's]

http://collections.richmondhistorycenter.com/getimg.php?wm=no&loc=D%3A%2Fimages%2FIMG_2012%5C&fn=I_V_2012_04_267.jpg[40's-60's]

http://cdn101.iofferphoto.com/img/item/460/521/76/o_generalelectricadnu.jpg[30's-40's]

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_3jlekWhYyug/SlVb_7yyXwI/AAAAAAAAATY/5kZgmb0Gb44/s320/chubbiesad.jpg[70's]

http://www.shamelessmag.com/media/content/2007/11/lockport.png[90's]

thunderkyss
06-15-2013, 09:00 PM
So, for me, the original intent of the name, whether it was meant to be good or bad, doesn't really matter.


But I've heard Sambo used as a derogatory term. I've heard gay used in demeaning context. We've seen it in our movies, we've heard it in our music, in our books, we've seen it in the news.

I've never heard "Redskins" used as a derogatory term. Not in the movies, not in books, not in music, not in the news.

This is like saying the Cleveland Indians should change their mascot because Native Americans find it offensive. Their mascot isn't doing anything that should be considered offensive. He looks authentic, proud, fierce, honorable. But because he's a "mascot" it's offensive?? I'm not buying it.

A local highschool deals with the same thing. They are the Indians. Their mascot does a war dance before the game, after every score, at half-time... someone said it was offensive to Native Americans & suggested they change their name & mascot.

It makes no sense.

The Pencil Neck
06-15-2013, 11:11 PM
But I've heard Sambo used as a derogatory term. I've heard gay used in demeaning context. We've seen it in our movies, we've heard it in our music, in our books, we've seen it in the news.

I've never heard "Redskins" used as a derogatory term. Not in the movies, not in books, not in music, not in the news.

This is like saying the Cleveland Indians should change their mascot because Native Americans find it offensive. Their mascot isn't doing anything that should be considered offensive. He looks authentic, proud, fierce, honorable. But because he's a "mascot" it's offensive?? I'm not buying it.

A local highschool deals with the same thing. They are the Indians. Their mascot does a war dance before the game, after every score, at half-time... someone said it was offensive to Native Americans & suggested they change their name & mascot.

It makes no sense.

Like I said, if you're not THAT minority, then you don't know what it is they deal with and what it is they hear. You don't know how they're attacked and what they find demeaning.

Even different sections of that demographic living in different places will be offended by different words because they're attacked by different words where they live. Some Native American in Tennessee might get hit with the "redskin" word as derogatory but not feel that "brave" or "navajo" or whatever is derogatory but a Native American in Oklahoma or Alaska or California might and not be offended by "redskin".

Someone in the Majority telling someone in the Minority what they should and shouldn't be offended by is a dangerous position because it allows the Majority to minimize what the Minority is feeling. "Oh, you shouldn't be offended by that! I didn't mean anything by it." is a perfect defense for a racist to take.

And to be honest, I've defended myself with almost those exact same words when I offended a Jewish guy by making a JAP joke once. I'm not a racist [Again, exactly what a racist would say] and several of my Jewish friends came to my defense because they thought it was funny and non-offensive and they knew I didn't mean anything by it. But the bottom line is I said something and offended that guy... and I should have apologized. I didn't because I thought he was being overly sensitive and silly. That's the problem here: if someone gets offended, they're offended and telling them to chill out and grow up just compounds the problem.

BUT...

Until the larger community started to feel that the n-word was offensive, people continued to use it in every day life. People had to realize that it was offensive to other people and feel bad about offending them before anything changed. (Unlike me not feeling bad about making that JAP joke.)

The same thing's probably going to happen here. Some American Indians feel offended; some don't. But until a lot more people (both Indian and non-Indian) start to realize and CARE that it's offensive to some people, it isn't going to change.

It's a complicated issue.

Hookem Horns
06-16-2013, 12:15 AM
But I've heard Sambo used as a derogatory term. I've heard gay used in demeaning context. We've seen it in our movies, we've heard it in our music, in our books, we've seen it in the news.

I've never heard "Redskins" used as a derogatory term. Not in the movies, not in books, not in music, not in the news.

I can probably go up to the Dakotas and find several Native Americans up there that have never heard the term "porch monkey". Does that make it any less offensive? Of course not.

When using the term "redskin" to refer to Native Americans it IS derogatory.

Just because you personally haven't hear it that way doesn't change that.

As I said before most of us don't live in areas where there is a large population of Native Americans so we only hear the word "redskin" when referring to that football team that plays in DC.

However if you lived in the Dakotas, Montana or any other state where there are large populations of Native Americans and often racial tension between them and other races you would hear that word used in a totally different context.

You might hear things like "That store is run by a bunch of redskins".

"That girl is a redskin lover", referring to a white girl who dates Native Americans.

"Those redskins are a bunch of drunks".

How in the world can you say that is not derogatory??



This is like saying the Cleveland Indians should change their mascot because Native Americans find it offensive. Their mascot isn't doing anything that should be considered offensive. He looks authentic, proud, fierce, honorable. But because he's a "mascot" it's offensive?? I'm not buying it.

A local highschool deals with the same thing. They are the Indians. Their mascot does a war dance before the game, after every score, at half-time... someone said it was offensive to Native Americans & suggested they change their name & mascot.

It makes no sense.

I know some groups find all Native American macots offensive, however we are talking about the word "redskin" here, not indian, chief, etc. There is a HUGE difference between "redskin" and the rest. "Redskin" IS a racial slur.

Braves, Seminoles, Chiefs, Warriors, Blackhawks to me seem to more honor them than degrade them.

Zulus were brave warriors too. However if a professional team tried to name themselves the Zulus, had a mascot with the typical Zulu look (bone in nose, spear, etc), I would believe the NAACP would protest that.

Do you think this would fly in the US? ...

http://images.supersport.com/AmaZulu-mascot-g-500.jpg

I don't.

TEXANRED
06-16-2013, 12:17 AM
These, for whatever reasons, evidently have come and gone.

http://www.aubreysantiques.com/tinlongtom1june27-2010.JPG[20's-30's]

http://collections.richmondhistorycenter.com/getimg.php?wm=no&loc=D%3A%2Fimages%2FIMG_2012%5C&fn=I_V_2012_04_287.jpg [50's-70's]

http://collections.richmondhistorycenter.com/getimg.php?wm=no&loc=D%3A%2Fimages%2FIMG_2012%5C&fn=I_V_2012_04_267.jpg[40's-60's]

http://cdn101.iofferphoto.com/img/item/460/521/76/o_generalelectricadnu.jpg[30's-40's]

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_3jlekWhYyug/SlVb_7yyXwI/AAAAAAAAATY/5kZgmb0Gb44/s320/chubbiesad.jpg[70's]

http://www.shamelessmag.com/media/content/2007/11/lockport.png[90's]

My question is when the hell did fried chicken become a black thing? I am not black and eat a ton of fried chicken. KFC, Popeyes, hearts, churchs, all have a mix of races that eat there.

Popeyes new commercial for their chicken features a black woman. Does that make them racist?

thunderkyss
06-16-2013, 12:34 AM
However if you lived in the Dakotas, Montana or any other state where there are large populations of Native Americans and often racial tension between them and other races you would hear that word used in a totally different context.

You might hear things like "That store is run by a bunch of redskins".

"That girl is a redskin lover", referring to a white girl who dates Native Americans.

"Those redskins are a bunch of drunks".

How in the world can you say that is not derogatory??



I'd like to hear it before I call it a slur. I'd like to see some evidence that the word has been used at all, I don't believe it has been used in any context other than associated with the football team.

Yes people could have said those things, used that word that way. But I don't think they did.

Dan B.
06-16-2013, 12:40 AM
I'd like to hear it before I call it a slur. I'd like to see some evidence that the word has been used at all, I don't believe it has been used in any context other than associated with the football team.

Yes people could have said those things, used that word that way. But I don't think they did.

There are newspaper articles in the link I provided earlier that use it in a very disparaging light. L Frank Baum, who wrote The Wizard of Oz, penned this after Wounded Knee:



Sitting Bull, most renowned Sioux of modern history, is dead.

He was not a Chief, but without Kingly lineage he arose from a lowly position to the greatest Medicine Man of his time, by virtue of his shrewdness and daring.

He was an Indian with a white man's spirit of hatred and revenge for those who had wronged him and his. In his day he saw his son and his tribe gradually driven from their possessions: forced to give up their old hunting grounds and espouse the hard working and uncongenial avocations of the whites. And these, his conquerors, were marked in their dealings with his people by selfishness, falsehood and treachery. What wonder that his wild nature, untamed by years of subjection, should still revolt? What wonder that a fiery rage still burned within his breast and that he should seek every opportunity of obtaining vengeance upon his natural enemies.

The proud spirit of the original owners of these vast prairies inherited through centuries of fierce and bloody wars for their possession, lingered last in the bosom of Sitting Bull. With his fall the nobility of the Redskin is extinguished, and what few are left are a pack of whining curs who lick the hand that smites them. The Whites, by law of conquest, by justice of civilization, are masters of the American continent, and the best safety of the frontier settlements will be secured by the total annihilation of the few remaining Indians. Why not annihilation? Their glory has fled, their spirit broken, their manhood effaced; better that they die than live the miserable wretches that they are. History would forget these latter despicable beings, and speak, in latter ages of the glory of these grand Kings of forest and plain that Cooper loved to heroize.

Hookem Horns
06-16-2013, 01:07 AM
I'd like to hear it before I call it a slur. I'd like to see some evidence that the word has been used at all, I don't believe it has been used in any context other than associated with the football team.

Yes people could have said those things, used that word that way. But I don't think they did.

LOL, I don't really have "dog in this fight" (I do have Cherokee and some Cree ancestory, but I am white). I am telling you that I have a long time friend that lives in South Dakota. He's told me all sorts of stories about living around, going to school with, and working with Native Americans.

I am telling you that they use the word "redskin" and it's not used as a compliment. I've heard him use it several times, especially after he's been drinking. Growing up there he's had some run ins with some from the local tribes and he doesn't always speaking fondly of them if you know what I mean.

He's one of those "rough around the edges" types. He's got a good heart but seems to always find trouble. When he was younger that often resulted in going to blows with "some drunk redskin" in a bar as he would say.


You said you have never heard the term "redskin" in a song. I assume you don't listen to Iron Maiden, however I just remembered that they used "redskin" in "Run to the Hills".

White man came across the sea
He brought us pain and misery
He killed our tribes killed our creed
He took our game for his own need

We fought him hard we fought him well
Out on the plains we gave him hell
But many came too much for Cree
Oh will we ever be set free?

Riding through dust clouds and barren wastes
Galloping hard on the plains
Chasing the redskins back to their holes
Fighting them at their own game
Murder for freedom the stab in the back
Women and children are cowards attack

Run to the hills, run for your lives
Run to the hills, run for your lives

Soldier blue in the barren wastes
Hunting and killing their game
Raping the women and wasting the men
The only good Injuns are tame
Selling them whiskey and taking their gold
Enslaving the young and destroying the old

Run to the hills, run for your lives
[repeat to end]




http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=geHLdg_VNww

Hervoyel
06-16-2013, 01:35 AM
Like I said, if you're not THAT minority, then you don't know what it is they deal with and what it is they hear. You don't know how they're attacked and what they find demeaning.

Even different sections of that demographic living in different places will be offended by different words because they're attacked by different words where they live. Some Native American in Tennessee might get hit with the "redskin" word as derogatory but not feel that "brave" or "navajo" or whatever is derogatory but a Native American in Oklahoma or Alaska or California might and not be offended by "redskin".

When we finally complete the epic book of words that offend "someone, somewhere" and forever rule all of those words out completely I guess everyone will be happy and be able to get past the transgressions committed against their ancestors a century or more ago. What a happy day that will be when all racism is magically eliminated by walling off every word that ever made someone upset. I can hardly wait for the day.

Someone in the Majority telling someone in the Minority what they should and shouldn't be offended by is a dangerous position because it allows the Majority to minimize what the Minority is feeling. "Oh, you shouldn't be offended by that! I didn't mean anything by it." is a perfect defense for a racist to take.

Sometimes the majority is right about something but we'll never know that because in every single instance that the majority points out something we learn that they are on shaky ground and most likely just "bad" because there are more of them than there are whoever is butt-hurt at that particular point in time. Sometimes "I didn't mean anything by it" is entirely true.

And to be honest, I've defended myself with almost those exact same words when I offended a Jewish guy by making a JAP joke once. I'm not a racist [Again, exactly what a racist would say] and several of my Jewish friends came to my defense because they thought it was funny and non-offensive and they knew I didn't mean anything by it. But the bottom line is I said something and offended that guy... and I should have apologized. I didn't because I thought he was being overly sensitive and silly. That's the problem here: if someone gets offended, they're offended and telling them to chill out and grow up just compounds the problem.

I don't think any of us have never done that. It's a common enough story and when I've done that I've just said "I'm sorry. I did not mean to offend". I was sincere and expected to be taken at my word then. At what point did we decide collectively as a people that if you transgressed you had to apologize but if someone apologized to you it was ok to stay upset because well, you were just too offended to get over it. When I encounter someone who is too offended to reason with, too offended to get on with life I feel sorry for them because that's entirely their problem. Go through life looking for people who are out to offend you and you're sure to find them.

BUT...

Until the larger community started to feel that the n-word was offensive, people continued to use it in every day life. People had to realize that it was offensive to other people and feel bad about offending them before anything changed. (Unlike me not feeling bad about making that JAP joke.)

The same thing's probably going to happen here. Some American Indians feel offended; some don't. But until a lot more people (both Indian and non-Indian) start to realize and CARE that it's offensive to some people, it isn't going to change.

It's a complicated issue.

It does not have to be. We could probably get a law passed if we got enough offended people together and just rename the NFL teams "1" through "32" and then all we'd have to do is settle the team colors problem. Black is racist, so's Yellow, and I think we've established that Red is going to be a problem....

People just need to get over it and get behind what the word means today. I mean, it's "Redskins" not "Cowboys". Where are people's priorities here?

ObsiWan
06-16-2013, 05:01 AM
How something is said makes a great deal of difference.
Not for some words.
There's political correctness and there's being just plain mean. And I figure that what you were referring to when you said it depends on how you say it. If one is educated enough to know the origin of certain terms and the hate and hurt associated with their origins and original meanings, why would ever do that?
Some call it political correctness, I just see it as good manners.

CloakNNNdagger
06-16-2013, 08:28 AM
My question is when the hell did fried chicken become a black thing? I am not black and eat a ton of fried chicken. KFC, Popeyes, hearts, churchs, all have a mix of races that eat there.

Popeyes new commercial for their chicken features a black woman. Does that make them racist?

Agree with all you've said. The "Yo'" probably tips the scale in this example.

infantrycak
06-16-2013, 08:48 AM
There are newspaper articles in the link I provided earlier that use it in a very disparaging light. L Frank Baum, who wrote The Wizard of Oz, penned this after Wounded Knee:

So you provide an example where redskin is clearly not used disparagingly?

Wolf
06-16-2013, 11:27 AM
I don't know.

I feel if one chooses to be offended by a word they will be offended.

I have been called cracker and I just laughed it off and joked about it.
Saying that yeah I need a tan.

I would do the same thing if I was called a pale face.

Now for some reason I don't like being called a Texican. But that is my issue to work out :fostering:

Dan B.
06-16-2013, 12:15 PM
So you provide an example where redskin is clearly not used disparagingly?

I guess that depends on whether you consider it disparaging to call Native Americans curs deserving of annihilation who are subservient to the master race of the white man.

I do.

infantrycak
06-16-2013, 12:17 PM
I guess that depends on whether you consider it disparaging to call Native Americans curs deserving of annihilation who are subservient to the master race of the white man.

I do.

Differentiate Dan. I said his use of the word redskin was not disparaging not that he did not have a disparaging opinion of Indians. It is two different things.

In this case from what you quoted you have missed on both points as he is disparaging of white people and admiring Indians of old. His only disparagement of Indians is those who are left and do not live up to the old standard.

Dan B.
06-16-2013, 12:24 PM
Differentiate Dan. I said his use of the word redskin was not disparaging not that he did not have a disparaging opinion of Indians. It is two different things.

He said it in an editorial advocating genocide. I can't think of many more disparaging ways to use the term.

Was it disparaging when my grandmother said that "those ****** babies can sure sing" when she saw an R+B band on Saturday Night Live? I mean she was complimenting them, right?

Or what if someone wrote the same thing after MLK died, pointing out that with his death:
"the nobility of the ****** is extinguished, and what few are left are a pack of whining curs who lick the hand that smites them. The Whites, by law of conquest, by justice of civilization, are masters of the American continent, and the best safety of the frontier settlements will be secured by the total annihilation of the few remaining blacks. Why not annihilation? Their glory has fled, their spirit broken, their manhood effaced; better that they die than live the miserable wretches that they are. History would forget these latter despicable beings, and speak, in latter ages of the glory of these grand Kings of forest and plain that Cooper loved to heroize."

Insulting or not?


In this case from what you quoted you have missed on both points as he is disparaging of white people and admiring Indians of old. His only disparagement of Indians is those who are left and do not live up to the old standard.

Sounds an awful lot like old white guys that miss the days when ******s and spics knew their place. I think that's a racist attitude. Do you?

infantrycak
06-16-2013, 12:36 PM
Insulting or not?

Change the same paragraph to have white men after Genghis Khan took over significant white controlled territories. It still would not make white an innate disparaging term.

You still failed to address that the use of the word and the opinion of the people are two separate issues. My saying "white men are intellectually inferior" makes me a racist. It does not make the word "white" racist.

Sounds an awful lot like old white guys that miss the days when ******s and spics knew their place. I think that's a racist attitude. Do you?

Those are so dissimilar they do not deserve a response.

Dan B.
06-16-2013, 12:53 PM
Change the same paragraph to have white men after Genghis Khan took over significant white controlled territories. It still would not make white an innate disparaging term.

You still failed to address that the use of the word and the opinion of the people are two separate issues. My saying "white men are intellectually inferior" makes me a racist. It does not make the word "white" racist.

I don't consider the word "redskin" to be the same as the words "black" or "white." Neither does the country. If we did, your choice on the Census would be Black, White, Redskin, Hawaiian, Asian. Instead we call them Black, White, American Indian, etc. If it were merely a descriptive term like you claim, it would be used in the same fashion. Police and the media don't describe Indian subjects as redskins -- but they do describe others as black or white. I can't think of a single part of society where the word "redskin" is used in just a plain descriptive fashion the way "black" or "white" is. Can you?

Wolf
06-16-2013, 01:03 PM
I thought this was interesting

"Redskin" was used throughout the English-speaking world (and in equivalent transliterations in Europe) throughout the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries as a common term of reference for indigenous Americans. However, the more commonly used term from early colonization through the twentieth century was "Indian", perpetuating Columbus' error. [9] The first use of red-skin or red indian may have been limited to specific groups that used red pigments to decorate their bodies, such as the Beothuk people of Newfoundland who painted their bodies with red ochre. [10] Redskin is first recorded in the late 17th century and was applied to the Algonquian peoples generally, but specifically to the Delaware (who lived in what is now southern New York State and New York City, New Jersey, and eastern Pennsylvania). Redskin referred not to the natural skin color of the Delaware, but to their use of vermilion face paint and body paint. [11] The indigenous peoples of the continent had no common identity, and referred to themselves using individual tribal names, which is also preferred to the present day. Group identity for Native Americans only emerged during the late 18th and early 19th century, in the context of negotiations between many tribes signing a single treaty with the United States. [12]


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redskin_(slang)

infantrycak
06-16-2013, 01:07 PM
I don't consider the word "redskin" to be the same as the words "black" or "white."

Are you seriously implying "skin" is not implied whenever anyone says white or black?

Neither does the country.

Says you even when polls of Indians doesn't agree.

If we did, your choice on the Census would be Black, White, Redskin, Hawaiian, Asian. Instead we call them Black, White, American Indian, etc. If it were merely a descriptive term like you claim, it would be used in the same fashion. Police and the media don't describe Indian subjects as redskins -- but they do describe others as black or white. I can't think of a single part of society where the word "redskin" is used in just a plain descriptive fashion the way "black" or "white" is. Can you?

It also is not used as a common pejorative. You don't walk into a Walmart and hear rednecks commonly saying some crap about GD redskins holding up the lines but you sure do with blacks. Outside of a few narrow areas (as Hookem points out maybe South Dakota and all 5 people up there) redskin is not hurled around in a negative fashion. It is a word which simply doesn't come up. Fact is for 99% of people on this MB the word redskin won't come up in conversation in the next year other than in reference to the team.

Oh and yeah the census should decide this. From the census bureau:

White – A person having origins in any of the original peoples of Europe, the Middle East, or North Africa.

I doubt many folks would call this person white because they are from north africa.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3556/3448543134_e8dfda5120.jpg

Hookem Horns
06-16-2013, 02:05 PM
You don't walk into a Walmart and hear rednecks commonly saying some crap about GD redskins holding up the lines but you sure do with blacks. Outside of a few narrow areas (as Hookem points out maybe South Dakota and all 5 people up there) redskin is not hurled around in a negative fashion. It is a word which simply doesn't come up. Fact is for 99% of people on this MB the word redskin won't come up in conversation in the next year other than in reference to the team.



Again, because we don't live around many reservations. However I just don't get why you think the word is OK because you personally don't hear it where you live.

What does that have to do with anything? Go walk into an Indian reservation and start referring to them as redskins and see what happens.

If it's not offensive and a harmless, descriptive word as you claim then you'll be fine. However I wouldn't put money on that.

BTW, I don't hear the word n*gger at all in Spain, does that make it OK because the word n*gger doesn't come up in conversations over there?

infantrycak
06-16-2013, 03:09 PM
What does that have to do with anything? Go walk into an Indian reservation and start referring to them as redskins and see what happens.

If it's not offensive and a harmless, descriptive word as you claim then you'll be fine. However I wouldn't put money on that.

I would put money you are wrong. We are back to context matters.

Indian is harmless or not depending on how it is used as well.

BTW, I don't hear the word n*gger at all in Spain, does that make it OK because the word n*gger doesn't come up in conversations over there?

So now we are off to different languages and different cultures? I have never heard "f(*king Vince Young nut hugger" in Antartica. Does that change the intent of how it is said anywhere in the world? Context matters.

Oh and please on the Spain thing - Link (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/feb/08/spain.sport)

Hookem Horns
06-16-2013, 11:56 PM
:goodluck:I would put money you are wrong. We are back to context matters.

Indian is harmless or not depending on how it is used as well.



Indian and redskin are two different things. So, you really think you can call an American Indian "redskin" without having an issue? LOL, I would love to see that.

However since we probably will never be in South Dakota or a similar state at the same time I will call my body tomorrow and get his take on that.


So now we are off to different languages and different cultures? I have never heard "f(*king Vince Young nut hugger" in Antartica. Does that change the intent of how it is said anywhere in the world? Context matters.


Yes, you brought up different cultures. You said you never heard "redskin" used derogatory before and don't hear that term in Walmart where you live.

It's because you live in a different part of the country that is not too dialed in on the Amercian Indian culture. It's no different.

WTH does Vince Young have to to do with this?? I am sure most American Indians in South Dakota know he sucks too.


Oh and please on the Spain thing - Link (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/feb/08/spain.sport)

I brought up Spain because I spend a lot of time there, I know there is a lot of racism over there however that had nothing to do with my point.

You are coming off as "well that term isn't racist because I have never heard of it before, etc, so it shouldn't be to anyone else".

So?? Are you the one that decides what's acceptable or not?? You writing those rules?

I bet you have never heard the term "panchito" either. That's what the Spanish use when referring to Latinos from the America's. A "panchito" in Spain is a little peanut snack and they say immigrants from Latin America look like little brown peanuts.

Next time I hear that term over there and some Ecuadorian gets upset I will tell them that it's OK because Infantrycak in Houston has never heard that term before so it must not be derogatory.

This thread has floored me. I am really surprised by the responses here.

Dan B.
06-17-2013, 02:24 AM
In the spring of 1996 Wichita Unified School District 259, Wichita Kansas, formed a Committee on Desegregation. This committee made a unanimous recommendation to remove the REDSKIN mascot of 70 years used by one school in the district, Wichita North High School. In response to the recommendation of removal the principal of Wichita North High School formed another Mascot/Identity Committee to make a recommendation to the Site Council at North High School who would then make a recommendation to him on the future of the long standing REDSKIN mascot.

The following remarks were made by Clem Ironwing, Sioux, November 11, 1996, during a public hearing called by the Mascot/Identity Committee. Denied a seat on the Committee, Mr. Ironwing, an elder, was given three minutes standing alone on the school stage in front of three television stations, local radio stations and the Wichita Eagle newspaper in front of an audience of 250 to explain why it is not right for the school to continue using this mascot. His remarks follow:



"The word Redskin was taught to me at a very young age, and this is the meaning it has for me.

"I am a Native American. I grew up on an Indian reservation. As a child, the United States Government and the Catholic Church came into our homes, took us away from our families, and forced us into Catholic boarding schools. There was no choice to be had in this matter, you had to go. The Catholic Church with the blessings of the United States Government took it upon themselves to determine that we were savages, and needed to be transformed to fit into their society.

"When my hair was cut short by the priests, I was called a "redskin" and a savage. When I spoke my native tongue, I was beaten and called "redskin". When I tried to follow the spiritual path of my people, I was again beaten and called a "redskin". I was told by them to turn my back on the ways of my people, or I would forever be nothing but a dirty "redskin".

"The only way "redskin" was ever used towards my people and myself was in a derogatory manner. It was never, ever, used in a show of respect or kindness. It was only used to let you know that you were dirty and no good, and to this day still is.

"A long time ago, a group of people who had no knowledge of these facts, and who put no thought into what "redskin" actually meant chose to use this word for their mascot. A new group of people, now being confronted about it, have somehow decided it is their decision to change the meaning of this word to fit their purposes and agendas, but again have put no thought into its true meaning or what this word means to Native Americans." --by Clem Ironwing, Sioux

http://www.thepeoplespaths.net/articles/redskin.htm

ObsiWan
06-17-2013, 05:09 AM
http://www.thepeoplespaths.net/articles/redskin.htm

thanks for posting that.
and anyone who grew up watching old cowboy flicks knows that Redskin was never, ever used by the cowboys (the good guys) as a term of respect or affection. Don't take my word for it; go back and watch some of those early Gary Cooper or John Wayne movies.

thunderkyss
06-17-2013, 12:20 PM
http://www.thepeoplespaths.net/articles/redskin.htm

Alright, that's what I was looking for. If I could, I'd change my vote.

thanks for posting that.
and anyone who grew up watching old cowboy flicks knows that Redskin was never, ever used by the cowboys (the good guys) as a term of respect or affection. Don't take my word for it; go back and watch some of those early Gary Cooper or John Wayne movies.

I probably need to do that because I can't remember the word used in that manner in those movies.

CloakNNNdagger
10-05-2013, 04:38 PM
10/05/13

In an interview with the Associated Press, Obama was asked what he makes of the controversy surrounding the Redskins nickname. Although Obama said he doesn’t believe the Redskins or their fans are trying to offend anyone, he did say he believes that enough Native Americans are offended by it that it’s something the team needs to weigh.

“If I were the owner of the team and I knew that the name of my team, even if they’ve had a storied history, that was offending a sizable group of people, I’d think about changing it,” Obama said.

Obama did not say he believes the Redskins need to change their name, and he did not suggest that the government should take any action to compel the Redskins to change their name. But the mere fact of the President of the United States suggesting that changing the name might be a good idea shows just how hot a topic this has become.

Snyder can say all he wants that he’ll never change the Redskins’ name. But the pressure on him to re-think that position is mounting.

UPDATE 1:23 p.m. ET: Lanny Davis, an attorney and spokesman for the Redskins, told NBC’s Kristen Welker: “As a supporter of President Obama, I am sure the president is not aware that in the highly respected Annenberg Institute poll (taken 2004) with a national sample of Native Americans, 9 out of 10 Native Americans said they were not bothered by the name the ‘Washington Redskins.’ The president made these comments to the Associated Press, but he was apparently unaware that an April 2013 AP poll showed that eight out of ten of all Americans in a national sample don’t think the Washington Redskins name should be changed.

“We at the Redskins respect everyone. But like devoted fans of the Atlanta Braves, the Cleveland Indians and the Chicago Blackhawks (from President Obama’s home town), we love our team and its name and, like those fans, we do not intend to disparage or disrespect a racial or ethnic group. The name ‘Washington Redskins’ is 80 years old – it’s our history and legacy and tradition. We Redskins fans sing ‘hail to the Redskins’ every Sunday as a word of honor not disparagement.”link (http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2013/10/05/obama-if-i-were-snyder-id-think-about-changing-redskins-name/)

Texecutioner
10-05-2013, 04:58 PM
I just don't see this name as being racist. Context is important and it is not meant to offend. I can say that I'm offended by the Cowboys name if I want to for whatever reason I feel. That doesn't mean that it is out there to offend.

chicagotexan2
10-05-2013, 10:45 PM
cak, no amount of spin will cause me to feel any different or think it's any less racist and derogatory.

Obviously, what I say and how I feel doesn't matter to the majority of you all either.

How about if someone says wazzup my skinna'? Changing the last few letters makes a world of difference to some folks around here.

kingtexan
10-06-2013, 12:53 PM
You don't walk into a Walmart and hear rednecks commonly saying some crap about GD redskins holding up the lines but you sure do with blacks.

They may have a lot to do with there not being any Native Americans holding up the lines at WalMart, or the fast food drive-thru, or the post office, or the bank, or ...

kingtexan
10-06-2013, 12:56 PM
Black man is not some term "African Americans" came up with to describe themselves.


Don't think we pale folks came up with "white boy" either. Just sayin ...

Hookem Horns
10-07-2013, 06:04 PM
I just don't see this name as being racist.

You're Native American?

Yvette
10-08-2013, 04:24 PM
You're Native American?
Even if someone is a mere fraction, I want to know if they identify as NAI.

I'm 3/4 NAI and the remaining 1/4 is Irish, German, Spanish, Turkish. If the Annenburg Institute calls me and asks if I'm Irish, I can truthfully answer yes. That doesn't mean I know a damn thing about the Irish, though, because I don't identify as one.

Wait! This gets even better. Hookem, your wife is Spanish, right? That means I get an opinion on her/my culture/ancestry and get to tell her how to feel, right? LOL

Sigma
10-09-2013, 06:14 AM
Even if someone is a mere fraction, I want to know if they identify as NAI.

I'm 3/4 NAI and the remaining 1/4 is Irish, German, Spanish, Turkish. If the Annenburg Institute calls me and asks if I'm Irish, I can truthfully answer yes. That doesn't mean I know a damn thing about the Irish, though, because I don't identify as one.

Wait! This gets even better. Hookem, your wife is Spanish, right? That means I get an opinion on her/my culture/ancestry and get to tell her how to feel, right? LOL

Damn, it must be good to feel so strongly about your ancestry...

I'm italian and have more shame than pride in that....

IDEXAN
10-09-2013, 08:52 AM
There are Native American schools that call their teams Redskins. The term is used affectionately by some natives, similar to the way the N-word is used by some African-Americans. In the only recent poll to ask native people about the subject, 90 percent of respondents did not consider the term offensive
http://washington.cbslocal.com/2013/10/08/how-many-native-americans-think-redskins-is-a-slur/
*******
Hey but you can bet that if a reporter from the NY Times found one Indian on some remote reservation in Montana or Wyoming who objected to the "Redskins"
label, that reporter would make a big story and therefor a big issue about it.

Yvette
10-09-2013, 10:44 AM
Hey but you can bet that if a reporter from the NY Times found one Indian on some remote reservation in Montana or Wyoming who objected to the "Redskins"
label, that reporter would make a big story and therefor a big issue about it.
Harjo declines to estimate what percentage of native people oppose the name. But she notes that the many organizations supporting her lawsuit include the Cherokee, Comanche, Oneida and Seminole tribes, as well as the National Congress of American Indians, the largest intertribal organization, which represents more than 250 groups with a combined enrollment of 1.2 million.

From the article you posted, Idaho ;)

BTW, I hope your state recovers from it's white supremacist label sometime soon. Beautiful country but too many scary people up there.

Dread-Head
10-09-2013, 02:18 PM
I'm Native American. Call me a skin to my face and its on.

See. Last time this thread arose I mentioned that this and was told I was being "hyper-sensitive" or overly "political correct." I was told by some that "no one is offended".
Sorry, If someone called a team the NewJersey N:gg3rs I'd be offended.

Sigma
10-09-2013, 02:21 PM
See. Last time this thread arose I mentioned that this and was told I was being "hyper-sensitive" or overly "political correct." I was told by some that "no one is offended".
Sorry, If someone called a team the NewJersey N:gg3rs I'd be offended.

I think it's more likely they'll be called NewJersey Mobsters... :)

Double Barrel
10-09-2013, 02:27 PM
Sorry, If someone called a team the NewJersey N:gg3rs I'd be offended.

But...but...what if the intention was to honor black Americans? :rake:

Dread-Head
10-09-2013, 02:29 PM
cak, no amount of spin will cause me to feel any different or think it's any less racist and derogatory.

Obviously, what I say and how I feel doesn't matter to the majority of you all either.



Somewhere in the convoluted gumbo that is my DNA are some Indians. The term IS a racial slur and the lady finds it offensive. There might be those who don't but it doesn't mean that she should simply get in step with them. If she's offended, she's offended.
Kids where I work figure a certain prejorative ceases to be a racial slur if it ends in "gga" as opposed to "gger". It's just as odious to me even when people of color use it.

Dread-Head
10-09-2013, 02:30 PM
Actually it does matter to me.

I think people that have strong Native American ancestry are the exact people that should be voicing their opinions on this...


I'm with you guys.

Dread-Head
10-09-2013, 02:37 PM
Have you ever been called a 'skin, prairie n i g g e r, or anything like that? I have :/

:headhurts: Wow. First time I've ever heard THAT one.

Dread-Head
10-09-2013, 02:41 PM
I think it's more likely they'll be called NewJersey Mobsters... :)

No no...the "New Jersey Association of Legitimate Businessmen"

Dread-Head
10-09-2013, 02:42 PM
But...but...what if the intention was to honor black Americans? :rake:

I'm getting the mental pic of a mascot with big red lips and an afro... :clown:

IDEXAN
10-09-2013, 03:02 PM
BTW, I hope your state recovers from it's white supremacist label sometime soon. Beautiful country but too many scary people up there.
Hey man, most all of the white supremacists in Idaho are all of the LAPD cops retired and living up in the panhandle in the Coeur d'alene area. In other words, they are from California and not Idaho.
Speaking of white supremacist, you've got a ton of those hay-seed, redneck, bigots in Hicksville, Tenn right ?

Vinny
10-09-2013, 03:09 PM
Hey man, most all of the white supremacists in Idaho are all of the LAPD cops retired and living up in the panhandle in the Coeur d'alene area. In other words, they are from California and not Idaho.
Speaking of white supremacist, you've got a ton of those hay-seed, redneck, bigots in Hicksville, Tenn right ?I lived in Nashville for a while....saw more of this in Houston actually....but Houston is bigger. Nashville surprisingly cosmopolitan much like Houston is to those damn yankees.

Dread-Head
10-09-2013, 04:17 PM
I voted yes and have no problem admitting that. I also feel things have gone way too PC, however Redskin is to most Native Americans the same as the word n*gger to blacks.

Yeah, I practically spelled it out to get the point across.

How about start a hockey team in North Dakota and call them the North Dakota N*ggers? Sure, North Dakota is primarly made up of whites and Native Americans. The black population is small there but that doesn't matter does it? It's just a team name. Also there would be zero to very few black players on the team, however the name would not be meant to be offensive. It would celebrate the history of black people in this country.

You know what, let's not be THAT offensive. Let's call them instead the North Dakota Sambos. That would be less controversial.

How about Sambo the mascot? They would have this crest on their jerseys ...

http://img37.imageshack.us/img37/8899/txjx.jpg

Probably after 80 years everyone would be used to the name and no one would think of it as being a racist slur. You would just think hockey in North Dakota.

If you voted NO to changing the Redskins name, please explain why you would be against the North Dakota Sambos? That is, IF you would be against it.

Carry on.

Wouldn't you hate being one of the handful of brothas playing hockey who got DRAFTED by either the Sambos or the N(gong)ers? Sux ta be you...

Dread-Head
10-09-2013, 04:20 PM
Aren't sports team names & mascots generally chosen because they represent the city/people, or are majestic, respected, or fierce?

I have always felt that teams chose Native American type names and symbols out of respect to their fierceness in combat.

I would think the bigger issue would be the Cleveland Indians mascot. I could see a Native American seeing a caricature of an Indian and getting offended.

While were at it, shouldnt the Irish Americans be outraged by the "Fighting Irish" of Notre Dame?


:thinking:

The Atlanta Angry Black Guys?

The New York Yakuza?

The El Paso Angry Mexican Guys with Knives?

kingtexan
10-18-2013, 11:34 AM
Speaking of re-hashing old threads, I will stand guilty as charged.

I was thinking, and wonder if Natives would be a more appropriate name for the team? Then DC has the Nationals and the Natives, so everyone can just root for the "Nats".

Double Barrel
10-18-2013, 03:51 PM
Man, some are taking this issue to extremes:

http://wttg.images.worldnow.com/images/2908449_G.jpg

Political cartoon compares Redskins logo to swastika, confederate flag (http://www.myfoxdc.com/story/23726152/political-cartoon-compares-redskins-logo-to-swastika-confederate-flag#axzz2i6XPGAFf)

They are going to Godwin's Law their own cause.

Dread-Head
10-18-2013, 04:00 PM
Don't think we pale folks came up with "white boy" either. Just sayin ...

Apples & watermelons. They're both fruit...but no one with half a brain would ever confuse one for the other.

I'm somewhat bothered by the fact that a certain rap group in the 80s/90s called themselves N:33as With Attitudes and that they and OTHER rap artist used the word "N:gg3r/Ni33a" so much to where it's such a part of the venacular that young white, Asian and Latinos routinely call their friends "My n:33as".
Are you AS bothered by the fact that a funk group from Pittsburgh called Wild Cherry had a hit song whose lyrics stated "Somebody turned around and shouted 'PLAY THAT FUNKY MUSIC WHITE-B0Y!' ?"

kingtexan
10-18-2013, 08:51 PM
Apples & watermelons. They're both fruit...but no one with half a brain would ever confuse one for the other.

I'm somewhat bothered by the fact that a certain rap group in the 80s/90s called themselves N:33as With Attitudes and that they and OTHER rap artist used the word "N:gg3r/Ni33a" so much to where it's such a part of the venacular that young white, Asian and Latinos routinely call their friends "My n:33as".
Are you AS bothered by the fact that a funk group from Pittsburgh called Wild Cherry had a hit song whose lyrics stated "Somebody turned around and shouted 'PLAY THAT FUNKY MUSIC WHITE-B0Y!' ?"

No, but if I went around calling those with a darker pigment of skin than myself "black boys", wonder how that would go over? What offends me is that those who claim to be effected by racism and want to stand up and cry foul every time anything happens to someone from their culture, use this type of terminology. Either we are just human beings, intended to be treated equal, or we aren't. It isn't that one faction of society gets to be treated with kid gloves, and another can be treated with disrespect. Either times change, or they don't. We don't get to reverse the wrongs and everyone go home happy, that has been tried ... and so far doesn't seem to have worked out so well. Awesome song by the way ...

Corrosion
10-18-2013, 09:09 PM
You're Native American?

Two great grandmothers were full blood indians - one Cherokee , the other Comanche ....


Redskin doesn't bother me .... but some other native Americans take offense to it.

Speedy
10-18-2013, 09:34 PM
Two great grandmothers were full blood indians - one Cherokee , the other Comanche ....


Redskin doesn't bother me .... but some other native Americans take offense to it.

Someone somewhere is always going to be offended about something.

It's a damn sports team that doesn't mean a whole hell of a lot in the grand scheme of things. One that's been around for 82 freaking years at that. No one cared what they were called when they were winning Super Bowls. If you don't like their team name, root for the damn Giants. No wait, my great great grandpappy was part giant. They have to change their name too.

Dread-Head
10-19-2013, 01:05 PM
No, but if I went around calling those with a darker pigment of skin than myself "black boys", wonder how that would go over? What offends me is that those who claim to be effected by racism and want to stand up and cry foul every time anything happens to someone from their culture, use this type of terminology. Either we are just human beings, intended to be treated equal, or we aren't. It isn't that one faction of society gets to be treated with kid gloves, and another can be treated with disrespect. Either times change, or they don't. We don't get to reverse the wrongs and everyone go home happy, that has been tried ... and so far doesn't seem to have worked out so well. Awesome song by the way ...

What I love so much about this board/group is that were you to ask many who've met me to describe me, the first thing they'd say is "He's crazy!" then they'd describe my personality and the hair and crap I've said over the years. The BULK of these guys probably would probably forget to mention that I'm black because in the grand scheme of things I don't think many of us in here view each other as "that black guy", "that white guy", "that hot indian/native American chick" or "That Amerasian guy."
Hell if someone asked me to describe Bill, I would describe him as the lovable, scruffy, hard drinking, skirt chasing party animal through whom MANY of us live vicariously. I hesitate to assign Bill to a group because, well... I KNOW no one wants to take responsibility for him. Just kiddin' Bill.

chicagotexan2
10-19-2013, 05:30 PM
Man, some are taking this issue to extremes:

http://wttg.images.worldnow.com/images/2908449_G.jpg

Political cartoon compares Redskins logo to swastika, confederate flag (http://www.myfoxdc.com/story/23726152/political-cartoon-compares-redskins-logo-to-swastika-confederate-flag#axzz2i6XPGAFf)

They are going to Godwin's Law their own cause.

But DB this is a seminal moment in the history of this country. If we continue to allow this blatant travesty to continue we will turn back the clock on all the progress we've made as a people. I'm not looking for the sarcasm smiley.

False Start
10-25-2013, 12:45 PM
Washington Bravehearts (http://washington.cbslocal.com/2013/10/25/tmz-neighbor-to-dan-snyder-registers-washington-bravehearts-trademark/)

:hankpalm:

Pretty damn lame IMO.


William Wallace as the mascot?

StarStruck
10-25-2013, 05:05 PM
I voted yes. IMO it all about what the person or group want's to be called more than what I want or feel comfortable calling them.

Being the senior citizen I recall even more controversy when Mohammed Ali changed his name, the resistance and refusal by some to acknowledge his wishes. Eventually, Cassius Clay became a fading memory. Hopefully, this too shall pass.

Corrosion
10-25-2013, 07:13 PM
I voted yes. IMO it all about what the person or group want's to be called more than what I want or feel comfortable calling them.

Being the senior citizen I recall even more controversy when Mohammed Ali changed his name, the resistance and refusal by some to acknowledge his wishes. Eventually, Cassius Clay became a fading memory. Hopefully, this too shall pass.

That's a whole nother can of worms ....


I really don't care what they call the Redskins but ... after 83 years of history , it seems silly.

I bet the astronauts are offended by the Astro's , no way are they reaching for the stars , they are more disastro's than Astro's ..... haha.


Someone's always going to find a way to be offended ....

eriadoc
10-25-2013, 07:35 PM
The team is seriously considering removing the offensive part of their name - Washington. They'll just be the Redskins.

Mari-OWNED!
10-25-2013, 09:32 PM
The true irony would be the people that are protesting the Redskins name are still okay with using $20 bills with Andrew Jackson's face adorned smack dab in the middle of their currency.

Indian Removal Act of 1830/Trail of Tears ring any bells?

Let's get butthurt over something trivial like a football franchise name, but completely ignore something that is on a much much bigger scale like US currency.

kingtexan
10-26-2013, 07:22 PM
The true irony would be the people that are protesting the Redskins name are still okay with using $20 bills with Andrew Jackson's face adorned smack dab in the middle of their currency.

Indian Removal Act of 1830/Trail of Tears ring any bells?

Let's get butthurt over something trivial like a football franchise name, but completely ignore something that is on a much much bigger scale like US currency.

You are assuming people have intellect and any clue about US History ... how dare you?!! :tiphat:

Dutchrudder
10-28-2013, 10:41 AM
Dan Snyder Agrees to Change the Redskins Name: LINK (http://www.theonion.com/articles/washington-redskins-change-their-name-to-the-dc-re,34161/)

WASHINGTON—Following an outpouring of criticism from across the country, the Washington Redskins announced Wednesday that they are officially changing the team’s name to the D.C. Redskins. “We’ve heard the concerns of many people who have been hurt or offended by the team’s previous name, and I’m happy to say we’ve now rectified the situation once and for all,” said franchise owner Dan Snyder, adding that “Washington Redskins” will be replaced with “D.C. Redskins” on all team logos, uniforms, and apparel. “It was a difficult decision—and one that, frankly, I’m a little embarrassed took me so long to make. So hopefully we can now put this issue to bed and start cheering on our D.C. Redskins.” In light of Snyder’s decision, Cleveland Indians owner Larry Dolan told reporters he will change the feather in Chief Wahoo’s headdress from red to a “more appropriate” shade of red.


http://o.onionstatic.com/images/23/23816/original/700.jpg?9603

Dread-Head
10-28-2013, 11:07 AM
The true irony would be the people that are protesting the Redskins name are still okay with using $20 bills with Andrew Jackson's face adorned smack dab in the middle of their currency.

Indian Removal Act of 1830/Trail of Tears ring any bells?

Let's get butthurt over something trivial like a football franchise name, but completely ignore something that is on a much much bigger scale like US currency.

Implying that people have forgotten the "trail of tears"? I envision Jackson in hell being tormented by every Indian who found himself/herself in Satan's company...but that's just me.

Double Barrel
10-28-2013, 01:29 PM
The true irony would be the people that are protesting the Redskins name are still okay with using $20 bills with Andrew Jackson's face adorned smack dab in the middle of their currency.

Indian Removal Act of 1830/Trail of Tears ring any bells?

Let's get butthurt over something trivial like a football franchise name, but completely ignore something that is on a much much bigger scale like US currency.

Somebody beat you to that punchline long time ago.

Petition: Remove Jackson From the Twenty (http://www.petitiononline.com/petitions/2047/signatures)

Also, a website devoted to the cause: www.getjacksonoffthe20.net

Google...is yer friend :fostering:

Mari-OWNED!
10-28-2013, 01:47 PM
Somebody beat you to that punchline long time ago.

Petition: Remove Jackson From the Twenty (http://www.petitiononline.com/petitions/2047/signatures)

Also, a website devoted to the cause: www.getjacksonoffthe20.net

Google...is yer friend :fostering:

Well of course there are people petitioning it, but my point is that most of the people protesting the Washington Redskins, Cleveland Indians, etc. are completely oblivious when it comes to Andrew Jackson on the $20 bill.

Double Barrel
10-28-2013, 01:53 PM
Well of course there are people petitioning it, but my point is that most of the people protesting the Washington Redskins, Cleveland Indians, etc. are completely oblivious when it comes to Andrew Jackson on the $20 bill.

Oh, I agree with you. I was just curious and checked Google. I never knew there was an actual movement to remove Jackson from the $20 until you mentioned it. Honestly I find it kinda' bizarre, but to each his own, I guess.

:truck:

eriadoc
10-30-2013, 11:40 AM
I think what we have here is a trailing vowel issue.

LINK (http://cnsmaryland.org/interactives/other-redskins/)

Yet not all Native Americans oppose the term Redskins. Capital News Service identified three majority Native American high schools that use it proudly, including Red Mesa High School in Arizona.

“Being from Native American culture, [the term] is not derogatory,” said Tommie Yazzie, superintendent of the school district that oversees Red Mesa High School. He identified himself as a “full-blooded Navajo.”

Red Mesa High School is located on a Navajo reservation, and 99.3 percent of its students are Native American, according to the National Center for Education Statistics.

Yazzie said people on his reservation care about more pressing things than the use of the name Redskins.

“Education, public health ‒ those are the things we’re more concerned about, rather than whether a team name is appropriate,” he said.

Though he said it was acceptable for schools with majority Native American populations to use the name Redskins, he believes that non‐Native American schools should avoid using it.

“If you were to put this in an urban area where the population is basically white, unless there is a cultural connection, it would be inappropriate,” he said.

He was also troubled by the use of Native American war chants and gestures during sporting events, something that is common at other schools with Native American mascots.

“We don’t use those gestures and traditions. As Navajos we have respect for warfare. Warfare means taking a life. And when a young warrior goes out to battle, [the gestures and war chants] belong there,” he said. “When you come back into civilian life, you don’t take that back with you. You don’t use the same type of gestures and hollering and bring that back into a sporting event.”

They need their own rap culture, the self loathing bastages.

Blake
05-22-2014, 12:04 PM
http://tracking.si.com/2014/05/22/washington-redskins-senators-urge-name-change/?eref=sihp

Redskins name controversy: 50 senators sign letter to Roger Goodell urging name change

:wadepalm:

kingtexan
05-22-2014, 12:16 PM
http://tracking.si.com/2014/05/22/washington-redskins-senators-urge-name-change/?eref=sihp



:wadepalm:

Glad the government has their priorities straight ...

signed,
homeless starving babies

Playoffs
05-22-2014, 12:20 PM
Redskins name controversy: 50 senators sign letter to Roger Goodell urging name change

50 didn't. :spin:

Blake
05-22-2014, 12:24 PM
50 didn't. :spin:

The ones that have bigger things to worry about than being the PC police.

Glad the government has their priorities straight ...

signed,
homeless starving babies

Exactly!

NCTexan
05-22-2014, 12:47 PM
I'm amazed 50 senators could agree on anything...

Brandon420tx
05-22-2014, 01:00 PM
Now my main reason for keeping the name is just to stick one to the politicians

Double Barrel
05-22-2014, 01:41 PM
The problem for the NFL is that these politicians have great power over the league due to the antitrust exemption.

Lawmakers threaten NFL’s tax-exempt status over Redskins team name

In a strongly-written letter to NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell, two lawmakers — Sen. Maria Cantwell, D-Wash., chairwoman of the Indian Affairs Committee, and Rep. Tom Cole, R-Okla., member of the Native American Caucus — indicated the league’s tax-exempt status could be on the line if the Washington Redskins does not change its name, the New York Times reported Sunday.

“The National Football League is on the wrong side of history,” the lawmakers wrote. “It is not appropriate for this multibillion-dollar 501(c)(6) tax-exempt organization to perpetuate and profit from the continued degradation of tribes and Indian people.”

Full article (http://libertyunyielding.com/2014/02/10/lawmakers-threaten-nfls-tax-exempt-status-redskins-team-name/)

That's not even an implied threat, but a straight up ultimatum. This issue could snowball and eventually force the NFL to change the name in order to protect their profit stream.

What is more important to the owners? Money or principle? Not really a serious question...

PapaL
05-22-2014, 02:27 PM
I don't know if this was in the comments of said article since it's blocked at work but kind of funny and kind of truthful.

Here is an email sent to Clarence Page of the Chicago Tribune after an article he published concerning a name change for the Washington Redskins.


Dear Mr. Page...



I always love your articles. and I generally agree with them. I would suggest, as in an email I received, they change the name to the "Foreskins" to better represent their community, paying tribute to the dick heads in Congress.

Here are some other politically correctness to consider: I agree with our Native American population. I am highly insulted by the racially charged name of the Washington Redskins. One might argue that to name a professional football team after Native Americans would exalt them as fine warriors, but nay, nay. We must be careful not to offend, and in the spirit of political correctness and courtesy, we must move forward. Let's ditch the Kansas City Chiefs, the Atlanta Braves and the Cleveland Indians. If your shorts are in a wad because of the reference the name Redskins makes to skin color, then we need to get rid of the Cleveland Browns.



The Carolina Panthers obviously were named to keep the memory of militant Blacks from the 60's alive. Gone. It's offensive to us white folk.



The New York Yankees offend the Southern population. Do you see a team named for the Confederacy? No! There is no room for any reference to that tragic war that cost this country so many young men's lives.



I am also offended by the blatant references to the Catholic religion among our sports team names. Totally inappropriate to have the New Orleans Saints, the Los Angeles Angels or the San Diego Padres.



Then there are the team names that glorify criminals who raped and pillaged. We are talking about the horrible Oakland Raiders, the Minnesota Vikings, the Tampa Bay Buccaneers and the Pittsburgh Pirates!



Now, let us address those teams that clearly send the wrong message to our children. The San Diego Chargers promote irresponsible fighting or even spending habits. Wrong message to our children.



The New York Giants and the San Francisco Giants promote obesity, a growing childhood epidemic. Wrong message to our children.



The Cincinnati Reds promote downers/barbiturates . Wrong message to our children.



The Milwaukee Brewers---well that goes without saying . . . Wrong message to our children.



So, there you go. We need to support any legislation that comes out to rectify this travesty, because the government will likely become involved with this issue, as they should. Just the kind of thing the do-nothing congress loves . . .



As a die hard Oregon State fan, my wife and I, with all of this in mind, it might also make some sense to change the name of the Oregon State women's athletic teams to something other than "the Beavers."

Keep those cards and letters coming.

Dread-Head
05-22-2014, 03:01 PM
I don't know if this was in the comments of said article since it's blocked at work but kind of funny and kind of truthful.

Wow. Homeboy was comparing apples and spetic tanks.

Thorn
05-22-2014, 03:06 PM
If Congress gets serious about the NFL's tax exemption, Washington changes its name. That's simple. And it won't matter what your principles or opinions are, the name will change if it's going to interrupt the money flow.

Dread-Head
05-23-2014, 11:11 AM
If Congress gets serious about the NFL's tax exemption, Washington changes its name. That's simple. And it won't matter what your principles or opinions are, the name will change if it's going to interrupt the money flow.

Wow. I'm agreeing with Thorn on this one. Man maybe my female friends are right I AM a curmudgeon.

BullNation4Life
05-23-2014, 11:41 AM
If Congress gets serious about the NFL's tax exemption, Washington changes its name. That's simple. And it won't matter what your principles or opinions are, the name will change if it's going to interrupt the money flow.

That's what Frank Underwood would do, hit them where it truly hurts...


Their wallet...

http://happynicetimepeople.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/hoc65.png

Double Barrel
05-23-2014, 11:50 AM
If Congress gets serious about the NFL's tax exemption, Washington changes its name. That's simple. And it won't matter what your principles or opinions are, the name will change if it's going to interrupt the money flow.

yep. And this issue has not peaked. It is snowballing, and when you see 50 senators signing something, it will probably continue to gain steam.

Politicians love issues like this one. High profile, low risk. It is absolutely no work required on their part, but they get free publicity and get to morally grandstand.

The NFL has no leverage with the politicians on this issue. Between the tax-exempt status, trademark issue, and publicly financed stadiums, the NFL is at their mercy.

mattieuk
05-23-2014, 04:28 PM
yep. And this issue has not peaked. It is snowballing, and when you see 50 senators signing something, it will probably continue to gain steam.

Politicians love issues like this one. High profile, low risk. It is absolutely no work required on their part, but they get free publicity and get to morally grandstand.

The NFL has no leverage with the politicians on this issue. Between the tax-exempt status, trademark issue, and publicly financed stadiums, the NFL is at their mercy.

Queue rumours of NFL franchises being relocated to Toronto, London and Mexico City in 3...2...1...

:kitten:

Seriously though - agree. The NFL has no footing in this battle if the politicians want to make a fuss about this. I think it is more likely a case of when, not if the name changes.

Playoffs
05-24-2014, 11:18 AM
Redskins name controversy: 50 senators sign letter to Roger Goodell urging name change

http://files.redskins.com/pdf/letter-from-pres-bruce-allen.pdf

tl;dr = No.

ObsiWan
05-24-2014, 12:38 PM
50 didn't. :spin:
here's the letter with sigs

LINK (http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/05/22/sports/football/22redskins-letter.html)

Carr Bombed
05-24-2014, 02:30 PM
So Washington plans on using the the tax exemption as a weapon against their enemies again? This time they aren't even trying to hide it.

If I was the N.F.L. I'd stand my ground and force them to do that. I'd love to see D.C. step in that big pile of a P.R. nightmare.

I wouldn't have a problem if they seriously considered changing their tax status, because they genuinely believed they shouldn't have a tax exemption, but by openly saying that your driving motive for changing their entire tax status is because you don't agree with one of their club's names is complete bull****, a blatant misuse of power, and targeting a group, because of a difference of views. (Hmm, where have we seen this before?) I hope to god the NFL holds their ground and forces congress' hand on that bluff.. because I'd love to see how that fiasco would end up... They'll be popping the top off a huge can of worms. So the NFL does have a leg to stand on (They have high priced lawyers too), whether they use it or not is a different story.

With this threat, congress/government just comes off looking more devious, untrustworthy, and incompetent... especially with the much more pressing issues facing this country that they elect to ignore. The N.F.L. shouldn't let them off the hook by cowering down to their demands. Force these morons to continue to show their ass.. I'm tired of people giving in to political correctness.. it's destroying this country

Carr Bombed
05-24-2014, 02:34 PM
Wow. Homeboy was comparing apples and spetic tanks.

How so? What he said was 100% correct as teams across the nation at lower levels have already changed names like "Rebels, warriors, chiefs, Indians" ect.. since all of this debate started. It's getting plumb dumb ridiculous.

Playoffs
05-24-2014, 02:50 PM
here's the letter with sigs

LINK (http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/05/22/sports/football/22redskins-letter.html)
Did Cantwell circulate a petition to change her own high school's mascot... ? :thinking:
Senator Maria Cantwell of Washington state, recently circulated a letter among her fellow Democrats demanding that the Washington Redskins change their name for being offensive and disrespectful to Native Americans.
...
Cantwell told the Washington Post she was appalled... the presentation of Washington’s team was “just so shocking to me,” and that the Redskins were offering “a caricature of a team that is not just respected by Indian Country,” she told the paper.

Cantwell might have been shocked earlier in life. Growing up in Indianapolis, Cantwell attended Emmerich Manual High School...its mascot is the “Redskins.”

Dan B.
05-24-2014, 03:25 PM
I love how the NFL wants the public to pay for their palaces, wants to pay $0 in taxes, but doesn't want the public telling them what to do. It's like a teenager living rent free in their parent's house and throwing a fit because Mom told them they can't wear a shirt with curse words on it to dinner.

Carr Bombed
05-24-2014, 03:45 PM
I love how the NFL wants the public to pay for their palaces, wants to pay $0 in taxes, but doesn't want the public telling them what to do. It's like a teenager living rent free in their parent's house and throwing a fit because Mom told them they can't wear a shirt with curse words on it to dinner.

The public isn't telling the Redskins what to do... the elected officials who were in bed with the league and helped them sell the local citizen on paying to build those stadiums, also profited off of the revenue and jobs those stadiums brought to their cities/states are. So unless there is a lot of incest going on in your metaphor it doesn't really fit.

On the grand scheme of things, average joe really doesn't give a crap either way. Hell polls show that native americans really don't give a crap.. who does give a damn though is the grandstanding politicians who'll use every opportunity to get their face in front of a camera and their name out in the media. Especially on issues like this. This didn't become a big ordeal until it was "politicized"

Carr Bombed
05-24-2014, 03:48 PM
im not surprised at all at the poll results.


"YEAAA!!!! SCREW NOT BEING RACIST AND BEING POLITICALLY CORRECT!!! I WANT THE RIGHT TO BE AN IGNORANT BIGOT STOP ATTACKING MY FREEDOM!!!"

:toropalm:

So native Americans are racist against.... native Americans?

Are maybe you actually believe that damn near 80% of the posters who post on this board are racist and ignorant bigots? If you actually believe that well.. smdh.


BTW, the poll results don't surprise me either. If only congress put this much effort into more pressing matters, maybe we wouldn't be up **** creek right now with a boat load of scandals popping up each week. This whole outrage by them is nothing, but a attempt to distract people from their own incompetence and failures up on the hill. Kind of like "don't look here... look over here, Redskins are bad, yeah let's focus on that".

Dan B.
05-24-2014, 04:49 PM
The public isn't telling the Redskins what to do... the elected officials who were in bed with the league and helped them sell the local citizen on paying to build those stadiums, also profited off of the revenue and jobs those stadiums brought to their cities/states are. So unless there is a lot of incest going on in your metaphor it doesn't really fit.

On the grand scheme of things, average joe really doesn't give a crap either way. Hell polls show that native americans really don't give a crap.. who does give a damn though is the grandstanding politicians who'll use every opportunity to get their face in front of a camera and their name out in the media. Especially on issues like this. This didn't become a big ordeal until it was "politicized"

The Redskins weren't integrated until the issue became "politicized." Sometimes that's what it takes. The average joe really didn't give a crap that the team refused to hire black players into the 1960's. But the politicians did.

Carr Bombed
05-24-2014, 04:53 PM
The Redskins weren't integrated until the issue became "politicized." Sometimes that's what it takes. The average joe really didn't give a crap that the team refused to hire black players into the 1960's. But the politicians did.

The people did.. Did you miss the entire civil rights movement (which wasn't started by politicians) or are you just trying to rewrite history here?

Dan B.
05-24-2014, 05:00 PM
The people did.. Did you miss the entire American Indian movement (which wasn't started by politicians) or are you just trying to rewrite history here?

fify

Carr Bombed
05-24-2014, 05:00 PM
aaand who is in control of congress?

the same kind of trying to pin every problem the government is having on obama. the same kind of people you defended that is destroying the state of texas with all the fracking and refusal to acknowledge climate change.

congrats.

Not the people, seeing how as soon as these buffoons are elected they do whatever the hell they want to do. If you really think "the people" are in control of congress then you need to wake up.

Also before you throw bull**** accusations like that around.. please tell us where people are trying to pin every problem the government is having on Obama.. You confuse people blaming the man for everything wrong with simply expecting the man at the top to take control and do something about it.. there's a difference.

And please tells us how Texas is being destroyed while you're at it.. hold on, let me get my popcorn, I have to hear this. :headhurts:

Dan B.
05-24-2014, 05:08 PM
Despite your best efforts to get me to follow you chasing after windmills, I'm not going to try to defend politicians. That's not the point. It's a shiny bauble -- a distraction. I'll accept your POV for argument's sake. All of DC is corrupt and does nothing to represent the people that elect them.

The NFL still chooses to accept benefits from them. When you lie down with dogs you get fleas.

Carr Bombed
05-24-2014, 05:08 PM
fify

I come from Native American (not American Indian) descent.. I've made that known before on this board.. I could give a crap less what a damn football team calls itself. My skin isn't that thin.

So can many other Native Americans.. hence why the polls show the majority of Native Americans could care less. Please stop confusing a "movement" with political grandstanding that is trying to gain political points off the exploitation ofF the past "hardships" of Native Americans by pretending that they "care" and that is their only motive. :mariopalm: Frankly their actions are becoming more insulting.

Dan B.
05-24-2014, 05:14 PM
I come from Native American (not American Indian) descent.. I've made that known before on this board.. I could give a crap less what a damn football team calls itself. My skin isn't that thin.

So can many other Native Americans.. hence why the polls show the majority of Native Americans could care less. Please stop confusing a "movement" with political grandstanding that is trying to gain political points off the exploitation of the past "hardships" of Native Americans by pretending that they "care" and that is their only motive. :mariopalm: Frankly their actions are becoming more insulting.

You ever consider that's because over half the people actually living on an Indian Reservation don't have phone service? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reservation_poverty)

Modern telecommunications are also extremely lacking. More than half of households on reservations do not have phone service, compared with five percent nationally, and nine percent among nonmetropolitan areas.

Carr Bombed
05-24-2014, 05:29 PM
You ever consider that's because over half the people actually living on an Indian Reservation don't have phone service? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reservation_poverty)

And only 1/3 of the people lives on those reservations..and near a half of that 1/3 can express their opinion, so a vast majority has the ability to participate in the poll.

But I'm glad you brought this up.. Maybe if congress truly cared and actualy gave a damn about the plight of the Native Americans they would tackle the real issues facing them, but they won't.
the real issues isn't as provocative and doesn't garnish near the headlines as going after a member of a multibillion dollar enterprise over what their team name is does it? It's flat out patronizing.

Dan B.
05-24-2014, 05:50 PM
And only 1/3 lives on those reservations..and near a half of that 1/3 can express their opinion, so a vast majority has the ability to participate in the poll.

But I'm glad you brought this up.. Maybe if congress truly cared about the plight of the Native Americans they would tackle the real issues facing them, but that isn't as provocative and doesn't garnish near the headlines as going after a member of a multibillion dollar enterprise over what their team name is does it? It's flat out patronizing.

Until those dastardly Senators politicized the issue, the multibillion dollar Redskins never helped those tribes tackle the real issues facing them either.

I honestly don't know what your point is. Is it that the Redskins name shouldn't be changed because Congress is in bed with the NFL? The two have nothing to do with each other.

Is it that most people don't care about the issue, so nothing should be done about it? Most people don't care about Benghazi either. Shoukl we ignore that?

I think there is a clear and obvious reason why many find the name "Redskins" offensive. It doesn't matter if it's the majority or not. I don't think a team would be called that today. With so many reasons to change the name, if the only reason you have to hold on to a name is "because the name wasn't offensive in 1937" I don't think you have much of a reason.

Carr Bombed
05-24-2014, 06:17 PM
Until those dastardly Senators politicized the issue, the multibillion dollar Redskins never helped those tribes tackle the real issues facing them either.

Yeah, which is why it seems more like extortion rather than true charity.. So how should I feel about that? It's not Daniel Snyder's job to solve the problem.

I honestly don't know what your point is. Is it that the Redskins name shouldn't be changed because Congress is in bed with the NFL? The two have nothing to do with each other.

No, my point is.. it wasn't even a main issue until Congress made it one and the timing that they chose to do so seems self serving. The only reason why I brought up how both were bed partners was because you acted like only one party was benefiting from the relationship.

Is it that most people don't care about the issue, so nothing should be done about it? Most people don't care about Benghazi either. Shoukl we ignore that?

Not true at all.. Plenty of people care about Benghazi.. it's just hard to keep focus on a issue when you're saturated by other scandals which what seems to be happening on a monthly basis now.

Here's a article from the New Yorker, just put out a couple of weeks ago..

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/borowitzreport/2014/05/poll-millions-of-americans-who-need-jobs-want-congress-to-get-to-bottom-of-this-benghazi-thing-first.html

That line of thinking would be like saying a year from now, people don't care about the VA scandal. Fast and Furious, Benghazi, IRS, Obama Care, and now the VA scandal.. people cared. There was simply nothing done about it. In those cases unlike this one.. Congress didn't care to get to the bottom of it or get real answers. (we'll see how this VA scandal goes), but for some reason they'll now create this issue to care about. Why is that?

I think there is a clear and obvious reason why many find the name "Redskins" offensive. It doesn't matter if it's the majority or not. I don't think a team would be called that today. With so many reasons to change the name, if the only reason you have to hold on to a name is "because the name wasn't offensive in 1937" I don't think you have much of a reason.

So we should just forget the entire past, because the small minority is throwing a fit? Yes I agree with you that a team would never be called that today, but I disagree with you that we should right every wrong simply because it offends the small minority. That is what is wrong with progressives. If they had it their way the entire world would be wrapped with bubble wrap and everybody would be eating their food with sporks with everybody having the right to "not be offended". (that's a world I don't want to live in).

If the NFL wants to keep that the name of one of their teams and look ignorant to others, then so be it.. they should be free to do so.. without being forced to change by dumbass politicians. Standing up for free speech and liberties isn't just standing up for the rights of those you agree with, but standing up for the same liberties of all people.. even those you disagree with.

Let the paying customer decide and force the name change. If people were so offended, they would cancel their season tickets and stop buying merchandise, players would refuse to play for them.. the majority of Native Americans would be asking for a change, and then the Redskins would have to change their name.. it's that simple. It isn't something that should be decided upon and ordered down by members of congress.

Dread-Head
05-26-2014, 12:20 PM
How so? What he said was 100% correct as teams across the nation at lower levels have already changed names like "Rebels, warriors, chiefs, Indians" ect.. since all of this debate started. It's getting plumb dumb ridiculous.

The original owner was a complete a-hole and a racist and the name of his team IS a racial slur. I think the man should have the right to call his team WHATEVER he chooses and congress shouldn't abridge that; HOWEVER, whether or not they change the name is NOT the issue to me. What pisses ME off is the fact that the organization is so oblivious to those who ARE offended and telling them that they're NOT.

The article sited says that people should be offended by teams with names like Raiders, Pirates and Buccaneers because Pirates were murderers and rapists. Yeah...they were. Calling someone a murderer or a rapist ISN'T the same as calling someone a racial slur. Hence apples and septic tanks. If someone called a team the Cleveland Killers I wouldn't lose any sleep.

Hervoyel
05-26-2014, 10:27 PM
Those who are offended need to get a life and get over it. You know I feel that way Dread so no point in going around on that again. Still, I think he should go ahead and change it even though I completely think the push to make him do it is BS. It's not worth the fight from a business perspective (IMO) and I fully expect the NFL to eventually convince him to go along. Besides who doesn't want to sell new merchandise to fans while still reserving the right to sell them "throwback" merchandise as well? It's a win-win for the team and the league if they cave in.

Having said that I tend to be a really crappy loser sometimes and if I were Snyder I'd begin shopping my team around the country. Make me change the name and I'll leave it and the city behind. There are still cities without a team and there's always London. I don't care if I'm under lease (teams have broken leases before) or whatever. I'll start over somewhere else and politicians in Washington can sign up for Sunday Ticket if they want to play that game. Trucks in the middle of the night sounds like a plan to me.

I'd like to see him do it just to see how Washington answers that. Call it morbid curiosity on my part. I've never rooted for a team to move but that team in this circumstance would be really fascinating to watch relocate.

HJam72
05-27-2014, 08:24 AM
Those who are offended need to get a life and get over it. You know I feel that way Dread so no point in going around on that again. Still, I think he should go ahead and change it even though I completely think the push to make him do it is BS. It's not worth the fight from a business perspective (IMO) and I fully expect the NFL to eventually convince him to go along. Besides who doesn't want to sell new merchandise to fans while still reserving the right to sell them "throwback" merchandise as well? It's a win-win for the team and the league if they cave in.

Having said that I tend to be a really crappy loser sometimes and if I were Snyder I'd begin shopping my team around the country. Make me change the name and I'll leave it and the city behind. There are still cities without a team and there's always London. I don't care if I'm under lease (teams have broken leases before) or whatever. I'll start over somewhere else and politicians in Washington can sign up for Sunday Ticket if they want to play that game. Trucks in the middle of the night sounds like a plan to me.

I'd like to see him do it just to see how Washington answers that. Call it morbid curiosity on my part. I've never rooted for a team to move but that team in this circumstance would be really fascinating to watch relocate.

The London Redskins, LOL.

Hervoyel
05-27-2014, 08:54 AM
The London Redskins, LOL.

No, I'm thinking that it would come as a response to being forced by the league and the government to change the name. Sort of a "Fine, no more Redskins. No more Washington D.C. either" approach.

I know it would never happen. I just think it would serve them right (The government, not the fans)

NCTexan
05-27-2014, 09:07 AM
So we should just forget the entire past,

I think you're the one advocating forgetting the entire past by saying Redskins is acceptable...

Dread-Head
05-27-2014, 12:43 PM
Those who are offended need to get a life and get over it. You know I feel that way Dread so no point in going around on that again. Still, I think he should go ahead and change it even though I completely think the push to make him do it is BS. It's not worth the fight from a business perspective (IMO) and I fully expect the NFL to eventually convince him to go along. Besides who doesn't want to sell new merchandise to fans while still reserving the right to sell them "throwback" merchandise as well? It's a win-win for the team and the league if they cave in.

Having said that I tend to be a really crappy loser sometimes and if I were Snyder I'd begin shopping my team around the country. Make me change the name and I'll leave it and the city behind. There are still cities without a team and there's always London. I don't care if I'm under lease (teams have broken leases before) or whatever. I'll start over somewhere else and politicians in Washington can sign up for Sunday Ticket if they want to play that game. Trucks in the middle of the night sounds like a plan to me.

I'd like to see him do it just to see how Washington answers that. Call it morbid curiosity on my part. I've never rooted for a team to move but that team in this circumstance would be really fascinating to watch relocate.

Again, I don't think Congress should have the right to tell the man to change the name. I don't think the NFL should be able to FORCE them to do so. I DO however think they need to change it, but it should be THEIR choices. If they want to use a racial slur as their team name that is their right, but I as someone who is a descendant of blacks and indians have the right to be offended, NOT to watch their games, NOT to purchase their merchandise or to say anything complimentary of Snyder.

Dan B.
05-30-2014, 08:01 PM
There’s a lot of controversy over whether Dietz was actually a Native American. Witten’s article doesn’t resolve that.

But it does refute the team’s contention that the name was selected to celebrate Dietz.

The proof is in a July 6, 1933, edition of the Hartford Courant, which Witten unearthed after the sports Web site MMQB tipped him off about it.

The edition includes a short Associated Press dispatch quoting Marshall saying: “The fact that we have in our head coach, Lone Star Dietz, an Indian, together with several Indian players, has not, as may be suspected, inspired me to select the name Redskins.”

Instead, Marshall explains, he gave up “Braves” to avoid confusion with a Boston professional baseball team of the same name. He apparently picked the Redskins name so he could keep the existing Native American logo.

Marshall himself says he changed the team name not to honor the coach, but to differentiate the brand.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/1933-news-article-refutes-cherished-tale-that-redskins-were-named-to-honor-indian-coach/2014/05/28/19ad32e8-e698-11e3-afc6-a1dd9407abcf_story.html

ObsiWan
05-31-2014, 07:50 AM
#RedskinsPride Twitter campaign not producing the results the Redskins were hoping for...

Link (http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/eye-on-football/24576323/redskins-pride-social-media-campaign-fails-miserably) (CBS Sports)
Link2 (http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/11002997/washington-redskins-twitter-campaign-support-keeping-nickname-draws-mixed-responses) (ESPN)

Washington Redskins ✔ @Redskins (https://twitter.com/Redskins) Follow (https://twitter.com/Redskins)
Tweet @SenatorReid (https://twitter.com/SenatorReid) to show your #RedskinsPride (https://twitter.com/search?q=%23RedskinsPride&src=hash) and tell him what the team means to you.
1:54 PM - 29 May 2014 (https://twitter.com/Redskins/statuses/472088588251721729)
Some responses....
steve coy @stevecoy (https://twitter.com/stevecoy) Follow (https://twitter.com/stevecoy) .@Redskins (https://twitter.com/Redskins) boy, good thing the systematic slaughter of indigenous people was managed better than this twitter account! #redskinspride (https://twitter.com/search?q=%23redskinspride&src=hash) Ang K @ankhela (https://twitter.com/ankhela) Follow (https://twitter.com/ankhela)
So great watching the complete failure of #RedskinsPride (https://twitter.com/search?q=%23RedskinsPride&src=hash). Dumbest PR move in a long time. Both that & #RedskinPride (https://twitter.com/search?q=%23RedskinPride&src=hash). Dumb team. #GoGiants (https://twitter.com/search?q=%23GoGiants&src=hash)
4:42 PM - 29 May 2014 (https://twitter.com/ankhela/statuses/472130818845200385)I think Ang might be a bit biased against the Redskins anyway

Brandon Russell @brandon_russell (https://twitter.com/brandon_russell) Follow (https://twitter.com/brandon_russell) What a clown show. I hate my team. RT “@Redskins (https://twitter.com/Redskins): Tweet @SenatorReid (https://twitter.com/SenatorReid) to show your #RedskinsPride (https://twitter.com/search?q=%23RedskinsPride&src=hash) and tell him what the team means to you.”
2:15 PM - 29 May 2014 (https://twitter.com/brandon_russell/statuses/472093784042663936)

Byrds Man
05-31-2014, 01:07 PM
If I were walking down the street and saw a native american on the other side of the street and yelled " Hey redskin! " that would be a racial slur. But if I yell the same thing in a football stadium it's OK? That makes no sense and I sincerely hope that Mr. Snyder does the right thing and let's the Washington fans pick a new name for the team. For those who are using history and tradition as an excuse for keeping the current name, I would respectfully assert that there are some traditions that need to be changed.

Texecutioner
05-31-2014, 03:30 PM
I really could care less about him changing the name. I hope that he doesn't, because I know that team as the Redskins. I'ver never taken an offensive connotation to it or thought of the name as being something to offend anyone. Actually more as a name to honor the mystique of native Americans. It's a shame that people can't see it that way. I'm not saying that I'm right or wrong, but I'm entitled to that opinion just like anyone else is. Snyder isn't aiming to offend any groups and neither has any upper level VP in that front office. It's always about context, but no one ever seems to care about context. Either way, I hope that the name never changes.

kingtexan
06-01-2014, 05:05 PM
If everyone who ever did anything in the name of "political correctness" were executed, the world would be a much better place. But, guess that isn't the PC way to think ...

Brandon420tx
06-10-2014, 12:02 PM
http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/anti-redskins-ad-to-air-during-nba-finals/2014/06/10/9808a964-f058-11e3-bf76-447a5df6411f_story.html

-sigh- They should just start changing their names to other "offensive" things at this point. But just slightly so people still know they were the Redskins.

Like:
Washington RedWoods (to also offend the California people)
Washington Apple Skins
Washington Red Epidermises
Washington Pink Skins (during October, not as offensive)
Washington Corrupt Politicians
Washington Engines (think about it)

I'll stop before I actually do offend someone, but you get the idea

Thorn
06-10-2014, 12:11 PM
I like being male and white. It makes it so much easier to judge other folks shortcomings since I obviously don't have any. :)

ObsiWan
06-10-2014, 12:16 PM
If everyone who ever did anything in the name of "political correctness" were executed, the world would be a much better place. But, guess that isn't the PC way to think ...

Not really.

What is called political correctness used to be just plain old, everyday, good manners and common decency. I mean it was just good manners to avoid insulting folks you don't even know for no good reason.

At least that's the way I was raised.

Maybe you were raised differently.

ObsiWan
06-10-2014, 12:26 PM
I like being male and white. It makes it so much easier to judge other folks shortcomings since I obviously don't have any. :)
You're wrong.
Just like these folks.

http://images.sodahead.com/slideshows/000012251/2743750249_129109773107580623-53789271850_xlarge.jpeg

False Start
06-10-2014, 12:36 PM
http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/anti-redskins-ad-to-air-during-nba-finals/2014/06/10/9808a964-f058-11e3-bf76-447a5df6411f_story.html

-sigh- They should just start changing their names to other "offensive" things at this point. But just slightly so people still know they were the Redskins.

Like:
Washington RedWoods (to also offend the California people)
Washington Apple Skins
Washington Red Epidermises
Washington Pink Skins (during October, not as offensive)
Washington Corrupt Politicians
Washington Engines (think about it)

I'll stop before I actually do offend someone, but you get the idea

I just cant believe they are gonna run that commercial, lame. :wadepalm:

Thorn
06-10-2014, 12:44 PM
You're wrong.
Just like these folks.

http://images.sodahead.com/slideshows/000012251/2743750249_129109773107580623-53789271850_xlarge.jpeg

* heavy sigh *

I should learn to be more direct with my criticism I guess, and not so nebulous.

Double Barrel
06-10-2014, 01:20 PM
Washington RedWoods (to also offend the California people)
Washington Apple Skins
Washington Red Epidermises
Washington Pink Skins (during October, not as offensive)
Washington Corrupt Politicians
Washington Engines (think about it)

Easiest solution:

http://www.realclearsports.com/images/wysiwyg_images/redskins/1pigskins-01.png

And their fans would just keep on keeping on:

http://www.motheringhut.com/images/art_hogs2.jpg

http://www.buddysbroads.com/image/hogs.jpg

http://static.foxsports.com/content/fscom/img/2013/01/11/011113-NFL-Redskins-Fans-Hogettes-DG-PI_20130111151808814_660_320.JPG

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_RVLfSMIB7K0/TQY_KEbaYwI/AAAAAAAAmrE/1VF13uIfipY/s640/Hogs.jpg

http://a.espncdn.com/photo/2013/0111/nfl_a_hogettes1_sy_600.jpg

http://davihundotcom.files.wordpress.com/2013/09/hogettes.jpg

kingtexan
06-10-2014, 01:24 PM
Not really.

What is called political correctness used to be just plain old, everyday, good manners and common decency. I mean it was just good manners to avoid insulting folks you don't even know for no good reason.

At least that's the way I was raised.

Maybe you were raised differently.

To intentionally insult someone is one thing. But to be afraid to say anything at all, or ever voice an opinion, because you "might" insult someone ... that is what we have become. Cant stand up for yourself, cant disagree, just go along with everyone else or feel the wrath of the masses.

False Start
06-10-2014, 05:47 PM
To intentionally insult someone is one thing. But to be afraid to say anything at all, or ever voice an opinion, because you "might" insult someone ... that is what we have become. Cant stand up for yourself, cant disagree, just go along with everyone else or feel the wrath of the masses.

Exactly!

ObsiWan
06-10-2014, 07:05 PM
To intentionally insult someone is one thing. But to be afraid to say anything at all, or ever voice an opinion, because you "might" insult someone ... that is what we have become. Cant stand up for yourself, cant disagree, just go along with everyone else or feel the wrath of the masses.
Well I doubt PC really means a person cannot stand up for themselves. If I called you - or anyone else - something they really objected to, I doubt that you've hesitate for a moment in getting me straight.

We need to grow up out of the "can't disagree" thing. We'll never progress as a civilization if we can't voice and work through our differences. And if someone or some group respectfully asks "Hey I'd appreciate it if you wouldn't call me that". Why is that so hard to do?

Double Barrel
06-10-2014, 07:31 PM
To intentionally insult someone is one thing. But to be afraid to say anything at all, or ever voice an opinion, because you "might" insult someone ... that is what we have become. Cant stand up for yourself, cant disagree, just go along with everyone else or feel the wrath of the masses.
http://izquotes.com/quotes-pictures/quote-sufficiently-advanced-political-correctness-is-indistinguishable-from-sarcasm-erik-naggum-255325.jpg

infantrycak
06-10-2014, 07:49 PM
Not really.

What is called political correctness used to be just plain old, everyday, good manners and common decency. I mean it was just good manners to avoid insulting folks you don't even know for no good reason.

At least that's the way I was raised.

Maybe you were raised differently.

Yup, and the whining about PC has gotten ridiculous.

htownfan32
06-10-2014, 07:51 PM
Yup, and the whining about PC has gotten ridiculous.

It's also usually accompanied by the equally ridiculous "good ole days" hand wringing.

infantrycak
06-10-2014, 10:06 PM
It's also usually accompanied by the equally ridiculous "good ole days" hand wringing.

"Back in the good ol' days you people knew better than to be offended."

Hookem Horns
06-10-2014, 10:18 PM
http://youtube.com/watch?v=o1KNpOFudOY

I saw this is airing tonight in many major cities during the NBA Finals.

Edit, didn't open up that previous link with this.

Anyway, I have made my opinion known on this. If Redskins is OK then the Confederate flag should be OK and schools like Ole Miss, Baytown Lee, etc should bring it back because it's meant to honor southern heritage and those men who lost their lives defending their homes during the War Between the States.

Again this is if we shouldn't care that a race of people sees it another way because I personally am not offended by the Confederate flag.

toronto
06-10-2014, 11:54 PM
http://youtube.com/watch?v=o1KNpOFudOY

I saw this is airing tonight in many major cities during the NBA Finals.

Edit, didn't open up that previous link with this.

Anyway, I have made my opinion known on this. If Redskins is OK then the Confederate flag should be OK and schools like Ole Miss, Baytown Lee, etc should bring it back because it's meant to honor southern heritage and those men who lost their lives defending their homes during the War Between the States.

Again this is if we shouldn't care that a race of people sees it another way because who are they to be offended?

Have to give them credit, very well done. Too long IMO but good ad.

Byrds Man
06-11-2014, 07:16 AM
Great commercial! Sums it up very well.
BTW full disclosure: my ancestry includes Shawnee.

TEXANRED
06-11-2014, 07:44 AM
I like being male and white. It makes it so much easier to judge other folks shortcomings since I obviously don't have any. :)

did you just say being Native American is a short coming?:bubbles:

ObsiWan
06-11-2014, 10:28 AM
did you just say being Native American is a short coming?:bubbles:
No, no... not at all.
Thorn said he can readily spot other folks' shortcomings since he's had so many years of experience dealing with all those he has


...or words to that effect....
:kitten:


for the record, so can I. And for the same reason(s).

htownfan32
06-11-2014, 10:30 AM
No, no... not at all.
Thorn said he can readily spot other folks' shortcomings since he's had so many years of experience dealing with all those he has


...or words to that effect....
:kitten:

But Thorn says he has NO shortcomings. He's always right and we're always wrong! :kitten:

Just messing with ya, Thorn.

Thorn
06-11-2014, 11:01 AM
I am as perfect as any alien being from another planet can be. And I'm retired as of this Friday.

I will now be able to sit at home, smoking pot, and ponder upon my perfection all day long. And reflect upon other's faults as well. :)

kingtexan
06-11-2014, 12:59 PM
http://youtube.com/watch?v=o1KNpOFudOY

I saw this is airing tonight in many major cities during the NBA Finals.

Edit, didn't open up that previous link with this.

Anyway, I have made my opinion known on this. If Redskins is OK then the Confederate flag should be OK and schools like Ole Miss, Baytown Lee, etc should bring it back because it's meant to honor southern heritage and those men who lost their lives defending their homes during the War Between the States.

Again this is if we shouldn't care that a race of people sees it another way because I personally am not offended by the Confederate flag.

The Confederate flag should be ok.

The Civil War wasn't fought over slavery, although the only reason that the slave owner himself Abe Lincoln made the Emancipation Proclamation was to win it. Those colors on that flag have nothing to do with racism or slavery.

Thorn
06-11-2014, 01:05 PM
The Confederate flag should be ok.

The Civil War wasn't fought over slavery, although the only reason that the slave owner himself Abe Lincoln made the Emancipation Proclamation was to win it. Those colors on that flag have nothing to do with racism or slavery.

One of the two brain cells you have left is shorting out. I'd get that checked if I was you.

Cerberus
06-11-2014, 04:14 PM
With all the talk of the Redskins changing their name, and me being born and raised in the D.C. area in a family full of 'Skins fans, I bought some Redskin gear today. The first time ever! And while I agree the name is racist, I apparently felt a greater need to buy some of their gear before Snyder is made to change the name. I'll be storing it next to my 50th Anniversary T-Shirts for the Raiders. Maybe one day they'll go along with my Washington Senator and Seattle Pilot baseball cards.

ObsiWan
06-11-2014, 06:35 PM
I am as perfect as any alien being from another planet can be. And I'm retired as of this Friday.

I will now be able to sit at home, smoking pot, and ponder upon my perfection all day long. And reflect upon other's faults as well. :)
You're not going back home?
https://lh3.ggpht.com/iUcwTCKV8Qt69p7PhxfPLLvpVmGbY6oNxrhdnd8JpjAnHal1Y7 MWjAyAsph1Ur5cwdo1Qw=w300

The plans for planetary rendezvous fell out of your pocket...

http://harishragunathan.files.wordpress.com/2011/04/kpax_journal.jpg

Playoffs
06-18-2014, 10:15 AM
ThinkProgress ‏@thinkprogress
U.S. Patent Office cancels trademark for Redskins because the name is “disparaging to Native Americans” http://thkpr.gs/1r6Y9ps


Mina Kimes ‏@minakimes
Good primer on the Redskins trademark battle (and what might happen next) http://usat.ly/SfYolW

MarkMaske ‏@MarkMaske
Daniel Snyder declined to comment on the ruling in the Redskins name case as he left the practice field today at the team's mincamp.

Bruce Allen when asked whether the Redskins can continue to use their name: "Did you read it?... We're fine. We're fine."
Ian Rapoport ‏@RapSheet
#Redskins trademark attorney Bob Raskopf said they’’ll appeal the ruling. “We are confident we will prevail once again”

#Redskins: “Evidence in the current claim is virtually identical to the evidence a federal judge decided was insufficient more 10 years ago”

Dread-Head
06-18-2014, 11:03 AM
The Confederate flag should be ok.

The Civil War wasn't fought over slavery, although the only reason that the slave owner himself Abe Lincoln made the Emancipation Proclamation was to win it. Those colors on that flag have nothing to do with racism or slavery.

Most people don't know what the confederate flag looked like. By "Confederate Flag" I mean the one that flew over Richmond not the one that was on the battle field with Lee's army of Northern Virginia. The FORMER in my opinion IS a symbol of racism and oppression the later is merely the banner of some guys who had their asses handed to them in this nation's bloodiest conflict. It can be seen as a symbol for those whose families fought for that cause and that is their their right; however, the fact that the Ku Klux Klan adopted the flag is why so many people of color loathe it.

The 3/5th compromise effectively said that slave states received congressional representation based on the number of slaves one could purchase. In other words a wealthy man with lots of land could BUY a large number of people and 3/5ths of that number would be added into his state's census and he would have in fact BOUGHT a congressional seat.
We can quibble about the balance of power and how at the end of the day it was industrialists versus agrarians but the fact of the matter remains, agrarians could PURCHASE human beigns to bolster their representation in congress against the industrialists and that was a HUGE bone of contention. Even if the North didn't make ANY gestures towards getting rid of slavery (which they did at the end of the war out of PURE SPITE) had they merely stopped awarding congressional representation based on slave populations the war would have happened anyway.

disaacks3
06-18-2014, 11:30 AM
ThinkProgress ‏@thinkprogress
U.S. Patent Office cancels trademark for Redskins because the name is “disparaging to Native Americans” http://thkpr.gs/1r6Y9ps

Mina Kimes ‏@minakimes

Hmm - So, Redskins is out but these are in? http://tmsearch.uspto.gov/bin/showfield

HILLBILLY DISTILLERY

FIGGAS OVER NIGGAS

TROPHY ***** (beatch)

RUG MUNCHER

REDNECKPECKERWOOD

ROUNDEYES

AUTHENTIC WHITE TRASH

KRAUT KAP

DAGO SWAGG Nope, none of these could possibly offend. :rolleyes:

htownfan32
06-18-2014, 11:34 AM
Hmm - So, Redskins is out but these are in? http://tmsearch.uspto.gov/bin/showfield

Nope, none of these could possibly offend. :rolleyes:

I don't like the name but I agree that the PTO should not show inconsistency if it rules this way. Also leery of gov't action to influence a name change but I'm also wondering if there are any lawyers willing to enlighten (Cak?) what effect this would have on the team name.

StarStruck
06-18-2014, 12:25 PM
Ian Rapoport ‏@RapSheet #Redskins trademark attorney Bob Raskopf said they’’ll appeal the ruling. “We are confident we will prevail once again”


If they appeal, is it legal to sell bootleg merchandise while the process is going on?

Dan B.
06-18-2014, 05:09 PM
Hmm - So, Redskins is out but these are in? http://tmsearch.uspto.gov/bin/showfield

Nope, none of these could possibly offend. :rolleyes:

That link is broken.

Some of those do not yet have trademarks, by the way. They are pending approval. And that's not a guarantee. The status for Figgas over Niggas is Non Final Action -- Mailed. (http://www.trademarkia.com/figgas-over-niggas-86093498.html) This means the examiner has found issues with the application and outlining them in written form. Such issues can range from simple changes to the application to outright refusals for various reasons.

disaacks3
06-18-2014, 05:37 PM
That link is broken.

Some of those do not yet have trademarks, by the way. They are pending approval. And that's not a guarantee. The status for Figgas over Niggas is Non Final Action -- Mailed. (http://www.trademarkia.com/figgas-over-niggas-86093498.html) This means the examiner has found issues with the application and outlining them in written form. Such issues can range from simple changes to the application to outright refusals for various reasons. Meh - Shows live on the Patent Office Site - that's what I went with. If any of them are approved and not yet revoked, there's a double-standard in play.

Amusingly, I went back and determined that REDNECKPECKERWOOD is registered to someone in the Woodlands. :lol:

Double Barrel
06-18-2014, 05:39 PM
Hmm - So, Redskins is out but these are in? http://tmsearch.uspto.gov/bin/showfield

Nope, none of these could possibly offend. :rolleyes:

From my perspective, it seems like this is beyond simply 'being offended'.

It concerns a sordid history of indigenous peoples who were systematically slaughtered by the U.S. government through various genocidal policies in order to dishonor all treaties to steal and exploit their lands.

The term speaks to a very ugly past and racial attitudes in this country for many people.

But, just my two cents, fwiw.

EllisUnit
06-18-2014, 05:43 PM
Both my grandparents were full blooded indian, so my dad was full blooded my mother was white/mutt. So that makes me half.

Should the redskins change their names ? I dont think so, everything in the world could offend one person. People these days are to soft and get their feelings hurt over nothing IMO.

Playoffs
06-18-2014, 09:01 PM
:barman:

Marshall
06-19-2014, 07:30 AM
No.

Hookem Horns
06-19-2014, 12:07 PM
Both my grandparents were full blooded indian, so my dad was full blooded my mother was white/mutt. So that makes me half.

Should the redskins change their names ? I dont think so, everything in the world could offend one person. People these days are to soft and get their feelings hurt over nothing IMO.

So I guess the bottom line here is we only have to be super sensitive when it comes to black Americans. If this were about their race the name would have been changed years ago.

BTW, being technically half NA doesn't really put you in their shoes. Now if you were posting from a reservation in North Dakota and dealing with racial tension daily for being Indian that would be another story.

Dread-Head
06-19-2014, 01:16 PM
As the descendant of African slaves, the French bastards who owned them and the Indians from whom they stole the land in the first place...I don't like ANYBODY! I aint too crazy about my DAMN self!

eriadoc
06-19-2014, 03:02 PM
BTW, being technically half NA doesn't really put you in their shoes. Now if you were posting from a reservation in North Dakota and dealing with racial tension daily for being Indian that would be another story.

So the one drop rule only applies to blacks. :stirpot:

Double Barrel
06-19-2014, 04:07 PM
So the one drop rule only applies to blacks. :stirpot:

I was curious about the 'one drop rule', so I looked it up.

Turns out it originated with white folks during 1960s Jim Crow laws in the south. Go figure.

So, yeah, because of racist whitey, it did only apply to blacks in order for them to be officially discriminated against.

eriadoc
06-19-2014, 04:21 PM
I was curious about the 'one drop rule', so I looked it up.

Turns out it originated with white folks during 1960s Jim Crow laws in the south. Go figure.

So, yeah, because of racist whitey, it did only apply to blacks in order for them to be officially discriminated against.

I'm just being facetious about the whole thing because I find the entire affair to be ludicrous on both sides. Hook'Em's comment about being half NA not mattering struck me funny after 6 years of hearing about our "black" President that grew up between Asia and a beach in Hawaii.

So I'm pretty much rolling my eyes at both threads on the topic every other post.

Double Barrel
06-19-2014, 04:38 PM
I'm just being facetious about the whole thing because I find the entire affair to be ludicrous on both sides. Hook'Em's comment about being half NA not mattering struck me funny after 6 years of hearing about our "black" President that grew up between Asia and a beach in Hawaii.

So I'm pretty much rolling my eyes at both threads on the topic every other post.

yeah, I knew you were being facetious. I was just curious about the one drop rule, because I've heard it my whole life. Thought it was interesting that it came from Jim Crow, as I've read many black folks embracing the concept the past few years, especially as it pertains to some entertainers and President Obama.