redskingush wrote:The terms "Redskins, Braves, Indians, Seminoles, Illini" are just nicknames and thats it the activists and everybody else that think its derogatory or whatever need to relax. you take these names away from the teams, you will take away their heritage.
Redskin is a far cry from indians, braves, or seminoles. redskin is derrogatory the others are not. i like the previous post about 'potomacs' as a much better name. the redskins should change the name, it is from a time when racism was prevalent in our country and terms like this were accepted.
i am by no means part of the pc police but 'redskin' come on, it's like calling a team the 'coloreds' or 'negros'
I'm sorry, but that is BS. Please provide an example of the term "redskin" being used in a derrogatory manner within the last, say, 50 years.
RED INDIAN - "An offensive name for Native Americans, but a historical term applied by the British to North American Indians, apparently because of 'their copper-colored skin' and to distinguish them semantically from the Indians of India. From 'Red Indian' came the derogatory word redskin." From "Encyclopedia of Word and Phrase Origins" by Robert Hendrickson (Facts on File, New York, 1997).
Still BS. All that says is this interpretation of the origin of the word (and even on that, the best it can say is "apparently") and it says nothing about it's place among the daily lexicon. Please, provide me with an example of it being use as a derrogatory term within the last 50 years, not just being referenced as having vaguely derrogatory origins.
Come on now are you asking for a published example? Yeah you probably won't find that. Chief in and of itself is not a derogatory term, but say that to a Native American in the following context, "Hey Chief, can I have a cigarette?" is that derogatory? Some may think it is a epithet others may not. I'm sure if you head out to a reservation and ask some people if they have been called a redskin in a derogatory way, I bet you'd get at least one in the past 50 years.
In related news, most major TV networks have confirmed that after careful deliberations, Mr. Dan Snyder has authorised a change in the name of the Washington Redskins football franchise to the Washington Rainbowskins. Given that players come from different ethnic backgrounds and social classes, the term has been considered appropriate and politically correct by most observers with nothing else to do.
One of the few exceptions is Green Peace. Their spokesperson declared in a recent interview that "this is an insult to the "Rainbow Warrior" and all it stood for. None of these players were ever sailors in the ship". Another concientous objector was Mr. Jessee Jackson who declared recently: "None of these players were ever members of the rainbow coalition. They never showed up at any of our meetings. This is an insult to all other Americans and the principles on which this country was founded."
Confounded with the unexpected criticism, Mr. Snyder decided to postpone indefinitely any further announcements or discussions on the subject.
Daniel Snyder has defined incompetence, failure and greed to true Washington Redskins fans for over a decade and a half. Stay away from football operations !!!
Unfortunately, I think at some point they will be made to change the name. I remember being at the Skins-Buffalo Superbowl in Minnesota. I was blown away by how many people were protesting the Skins there. I do understand that on the face, the term "Redskin" is derogatory and that it may offend some people, but at the core of it, it is a thing of pride and inspiration. We all see that but, the people that it matters to don't and they're affraid of NAACP an others and will cave to them. Intollerance of some extreme-tollerance of others. It is the world we live in. Unfortunately.
SkinsHead56 wrote:Come on now are you asking for a published example? Yeah you probably won't find that. Chief in and of itself is not a derogatory term, but say that to a Native American in the following context, "Hey Chief, can I have a cigarette?" is that derogatory? Some may think it is a epithet others may not. I'm sure if you head out to a reservation and ask some people if they have been called a redskin in a derogatory way, I bet you'd get at least one in the past 50 years.
I'll take any kind of documented evidence that redskin is a widely used derrogatory term. Admit it, if someone walking into a room you were in, and used the term "redskin" in a manner meant to be an insult to Indians, they'd get laughed out of the room.
How far do we want to go with removing anything that might offend anyone? Do you think the families of people who suffered attacks from white supremacists would find your user name a clever pun?
Long-Time Skins Fan wrote:I do understand that on the face, the term "Redskin" is derogatory and that it may offend some people, but at the core of it, it is a thing of pride and inspiration. We all see that but, the people that it matters to don't
Just the same, a Peter Harris Research Group's finding in a poll for Sports Illustrated a few years ago asked Indian people on and off reservations what they thought about the matter. The result showed 81 percent favored the use of "Indians," "Braves," "Warriors," etc., for high school and college teams, and 83 percent thought pro teams should continue using such nicknames, too.
Apparently, they do!
Andre Carter wrote:Damn man, you know your football.
SkinsHead56 wrote:Come on now are you asking for a published example? Yeah you probably won't find that. Chief in and of itself is not a derogatory term, but say that to a Native American in the following context, "Hey Chief, can I have a cigarette?" is that derogatory? Some may think it is a epithet others may not. I'm sure if you head out to a reservation and ask some people if they have been called a redskin in a derogatory way, I bet you'd get at least one in the past 50 years.
I'll take any kind of documented evidence that redskin is a widely used derrogatory term. Admit it, if someone walking into a room you were in, and used the term "redskin" in a manner meant to be an insult to Indians, they'd get laughed out of the room.
How far do we want to go with removing anything that might offend anyone? Do you think the families of people who suffered attacks from white supremacists would find your user name a clever pun?
Right if some one walked into a room after visiting an Indian casino and said “those redskins scalped me” I’d laugh because I’m not part of that race. Would a person of that race laugh? It depends on the person, but this is the type conduct that perpetuates the thinking that if no one speaks up there is no problem.
In a room full of people chances are there will be few if any people that find the term “redskin” offensive, base on population percentages, that would be like looking around a room to see if there any people of color before telling a racial joke.
As for my user name it is a play on words, but then again I don’t own a company worth a billion dollars, and making money off my user name.
SkinsHead56 wrote:Right if some one walked into a room after visiting an Indian casino and said “those redskins scalped me” I’d laugh because I’m not part of that race. Would a person of that race laugh? It depends on the person, but this is the type conduct that perpetuates the thinking that if no one speaks up there is no problem. In a room full of people chances are there will be few if any people that find the term “redskin” offensive, base on population percentages, that would be like looking around a room to see if there any people of color before telling a racial joke.
Read closer. I said you would be "laughed out of the room" if you used the term redskin the way you are claiming it is used. As a comparison, pick a real racial slur and play out the same scenario -- you'd be lucky to get out of the room alive.
SkinsHead56 wrote:As for my user name it is a play on words, but then again I don’t own a company worth a billion dollars, and making money off my user name.
Oh, so that's the water mark? It's ok to be racist as long as you don't make money on it? Nice logic.
SkinsHead56 wrote:Right if some one walked into a room after visiting an Indian casino and said “those redskins scalped me” I’d laugh because I’m not part of that race. Would a person of that race laugh? It depends on the person, but this is the type conduct that perpetuates the thinking that if no one speaks up there is no problem. In a room full of people chances are there will be few if any people that find the term “redskin” offensive, base on population percentages, that would be like looking around a room to see if there any people of color before telling a racial joke.
Read closer. I said you would be "laughed out of the room" if you used the term redskin the way you are claiming it is used. As a comparison, pick a real racial slur and play out the same scenario -- you'd be lucky to get out of the room alive.
SkinsHead56 wrote:As for my user name it is a play on words, but then again I don’t own a company worth a billion dollars, and making money off my user name.
Oh, so that's the water mark? It's ok to be racist as long as you don't make money on it? Nice logic.
If I were to use a "real racial slur" (which I would not) in a room full of people of the race being slurred, yes I agree with you I'd be lucky to get out alive. If I said the same thing a room full of any other race would the reaction be the same? Probably not. If I said redskin in a room full of American Indians what would happen? Skinhead is not racist by any definition, there are white, black, latino, asian, etc. etc. skinheads bald headed people. There are not black redskins, there are no white redskins (unless you have a really bad sun burn). Your argument is begining to leak water. I will agree to disagree on this point.
Skinhead is a term for a white supremist. Someone who had suffered from the actions of white supremists might not find you play on words to be humorous. But, since you don't have a lot of money, it doesn't matter, right?
cvillehog wrote:Skinhead is a term for a white supremist. Someone who had suffered from the actions of white supremists might not find you play on words to be humorous. But, since you don't have a lot of money, it doesn't matter, right?
whose argument leaks water?
Again, I agree to disagree. Skinheads choose to be bald. American Indians do not choose their skin color. Skinhead, redskin what is the difference right?
cvillehog wrote:Skinhead is a term for a white supremist. Someone who had suffered from the actions of white supremists might not find you play on words to be humorous. But, since you don't have a lot of money, it doesn't matter, right?
whose argument leaks water?
Again, I agree to disagree. Skinheads choose to be bald. American Indians do not choose their skin color. Skinhead, redskin what is the difference right?
You are missing the point. The point is, the term skinhead is offensive to some people -- not necessarily to those who are bald, but to those you have been beaten/killed/harrassed by people belonging to the racist group of the name Skinheads.
cvillehog wrote:Skinhead is a term for a white supremist. Someone who had suffered from the actions of white supremists might not find you play on words to be humorous. But, since you don't have a lot of money, it doesn't matter, right?
whose argument leaks water?
Again, I agree to disagree. Skinheads choose to be bald. American Indians do not choose their skin color. Skinhead, redskin what is the difference right?
You are missing the point. The point is, the term skinhead is offensive to some people -- not necessarily to those who are bald, but to those you have been beaten/killed/harrassed by people belonging to the racist group of the name Skinheads.
I am missing the point? Let try something.....
The point is, the term skinhead (redskin) is offensive to some people -- not necessarily to those who are bald (native American), but to those you have been beaten/killed/harassed by people (who came to this continent, spread disease and stole land.)
What is the difference then?
I think you are trying to hard to cover your own hypocricy. It's ok for you to make a pun on the name of a hate group, but it's not ok for a team to be named in honor of an Indian friend of the team's original owner jsut becuas it is a business.
I think you are trying to hard to cover your own hypocricy. It's ok for you to make a pun on the name of a hate group, but it's not ok for a team to be named in honor of an Indian friend of the team's original owner jsut becuas it is a business.
Yeah 1932 vs. 2005 that makes a lot of sense. Maybe I should have used Redskinshead56 then it would be cool in your book.
This is such BS. I guess the Wildlife federation will now try to change Philly's mascot, so it doesnt offend the animals. I dont know about everyone else, but when I hear the name Redskins I think of Football. Nothing else! These people need to get a damn life, this is pathetic
Taylor and Landry will take no Prisoners!! - I just can't bring myself to delete it!
For the record, I think that cvillehog is very much right on this issue--there just isn't any empirical evidence that suggests Washington needs to change its name, in terms of people actually being offended vs. "activists" fighting for some kind of social justice (that doesn't make sense to anyone but their bored and whiny butts).
But, in my opinion, the argument doesn't even get as far as whether or not there are people actually being offended by the name. The entire world could be offended by the name and our government should never force the Danny to change it unless they could actually prove that some kind of damage was being done (aside from those lonely tears on the faces of activists).
. . . .and yet, we go over this twice every offseason and at least once during the fall. And, I say the same blasted thing every time, so it's not like I'm really contributing anymore.
Wake me up when there's real Redskins news around. . .
Last edited by Irn-Bru on Wed Jul 06, 2005 9:58 pm, edited 1 time in total.
SkinsHead56 wrote:Yeah 1932 vs. 2005 that makes a lot of sense. Maybe I should have used Redskinshead56 then it would be cool in your book.
1932? What are you even talking about?
It's not about my book, you are the one going around arbitrarily doling out requirements for what is PC and what isn't.
You said
I think you are trying to hard to cover your own hypocricy. It's ok for you to make a pun on the name of a hate group, but it's not ok for a team to be named in honor of an Indian friend of the team's original owner jsut becuas it is a business.
When did the Braves become the Redskins? If you could not tell I consider myself among the least PC people on this site.
See my initial post.
In California (Land of the Gay Tree-Hugging Hippie) my grade school has changed from the Washington "Warriors" to the "Wildcats". Just plain crap I say. In all fairness "Redskins" can be construed as a derogatory term. I don’t think Warriors, Indians, or Braves fall under this category of offensive names. I am of Mexican decent and I can say that I would not want a sports team named the LA Beaners. Just as I'm sure many other ethnic groups would not want a stereotype name associated with a sports team (insert your favorite term here). I do hope a resolution can be found, but based on our experience out here on the "Left" Coast, it is just a matter of time before someone with enough money and lawyering friends gets this changed. My fellow Hogs, if you think that the East Coast is immune to this epidemic liberalism think again. Heck may be Danny should save the money and change the name to the Washington "Pit Bosses".
There is no right answer here. Best left at this, I'm not racist some of my best freinds are Redskins. (fans )
I do not care what number (or percentage of anything) is against the name of a team, if you don't like it, then when and IF you own the team, you can change it to whatever - until then try moving stuff uphill.
Get a life. This our team and the name is not changing.
Until recently, Snyder & Allen have made a lot of really bad decisions - nobody with any sense believes this franchise will get better under their guidance Snyder's W/L record = 45% (80-96) - Snyder/Allen = 41% (59-84-1)
FanfromAnnapolis wrote:. . . .and yet, we go over this twice every offseason and at least once during the fall. And, I say the same blasted thing every time, so it's not like I'm really contributing anymore.
This leaves me with nothing to contribute to the topic.
..__..
{o,o}
|)__)
-"-"-
When you reach the end of your rope, tie a knot in it and hold on....
actually, things may be a little different these days.
I'd be willing to bet that as soon as Snyder thinks he can get away with changing the name and logo, by saying he was pretty much forced to, or he can convincingly say it was inevitable, he probably will. There's lots and lots of money to be made once the name of the team and the logo change.
Then again, as a real, long time redskins fan, Mr Snyder may decide to do the right thing and fight any name or logo changes as long and hard as he can.
ColoradoHog wrote:What is crazy is that Indians call themselves Indians. Here in Denver they have an Indian Art Show. A few years ago I purchased a painting of an Indian Chief riding a horse. When I ran into some friends, I tried to explain what I purchased by saying that I had purchased a Native American Chief riding a horse. I realized how stupid I sounded surrounded by "Native Americans" who were all referring to themselves as Indians. That is a great example of taking PC too far. The other day I heard a commentator talking about an athlete of African decent who was a citizen of England. He referred to the man as an African American. The guy was from England....how does that make sense? One of the strengths of this country is our diversity. We are such a diverse people that if spend all of our time worrying about insulting each other we will lose our ability to communicate.
And likewise blacks in this country are FROM this country. THATS why they are not African-americans, anymore than Joe Gibbs is. What's truly funny is the fact that IF John Kerry had been elected President, Teresa Heinz Kerry would have been the FIRST African American first lady.....since she really is from Africa!
ColoradoHog wrote:What is crazy is that Indians call themselves Indians. Here in Denver they have an Indian Art Show. A few years ago I purchased a painting of an Indian Chief riding a horse. When I ran into some friends, I tried to explain what I purchased by saying that I had purchased a Native American Chief riding a horse. I realized how stupid I sounded surrounded by "Native Americans" who were all referring to themselves as Indians. That is a great example of taking PC too far. The other day I heard a commentator talking about an athlete of African decent who was a citizen of England. He referred to the man as an African American. The guy was from England....how does that make sense? One of the strengths of this country is our diversity. We are such a diverse people that if spend all of our time worrying about insulting each other we will lose our ability to communicate.
And likewise blacks in this country are FROM this country. THATS why they are not African-americans, anymore than Joe Gibbs is. What's truly funny is the fact that IF John Kerry had been elected President, Teresa Heinz Kerry would have been the FIRST African American first lady.....since she really is from Africa!
And all these years I thought I was an African American, what was I thinking? Now that Im no longer African American what am I now? A negro? Black? Last time I looked my skin is a nice light brown complextion. So Im not black either.
Maybe Im going out on a limb here but using your logic, if humans civilized mars they would no longer be earthlings, they'd be martians? Which would make them aliens? So one day aliens will truly exist...
Chris Luva Luva wrote: Maybe Im going out on a limb here but using your logic, if humans civilized mars they would no longer be earthlings, they'd be martians? Which would make them aliens? So one day aliens will truly exist...
So, Does it comes down to:
a) the washington Earthlings; or
b) the Washington Martians; or
c) the Washington Aliens?
What is wrong with the Washington Rainbowskins. The last time I checked, our team and we all had different backgrounds.
I can only make fun of this recurrent silly topic about the name of ourteam. It is better to ridicule it than to take it seriously.
Daniel Snyder has defined incompetence, failure and greed to true Washington Redskins fans for over a decade and a half. Stay away from football operations !!!
)
Now that Im no longer African American what am I now? A negro? Black? Last time I looked my skin is a nice light brown complextion. So Im not black either.
