New Column For an Old Argument: Change the Name

[KazooSkinsFan]

Look it up in the freaking dictionary:

red·skin
   /ˈrɛdˌskɪn/ Show Spelled[red-skin] Show IPA
–noun Slang: Often Disparaging and Offensive .
a North American Indian.

Now if you want to argue that a team could name themselves the honkeys, chinks, japs, negroes, spics, etc; etc; and that would be ok, go right ahead. But that is unfortunately where our team name fits

What a difference a word makes. Show us how the Redskins mean it as an offense. And show where the other examples you gave where you say our "name fits" are used without meaning offense because i think in those you could pretty clearly say, "Always Disparaging and Offensive." While you're at it, since Indians use the name for themselves, can you give an example of chinks, japs, negroes, spics etc. use those names for themselves on their schools?

Oops. Darn that logic...

[Deadskins]

I wish we would at least go back to the spear/arrowhead helmet.

So does Walter Wetzel, former chairman of the Blackfoot tribe and president of the National Congress of American Indians in the 1960s. By the early ‘60s, the Redskins had dropped any reference to Indians in their logo, uniforms and merchandise. Wetzel went to the Redskins office with photos of Indians in full headdress.

“I said, ‘I’d like to see an Indian on your helmets,’” which then sported a big “R” as the team logo, remembers Wetzel, now 86 and retired in Montana. Within weeks, the Redskins had a new logo, a composite Indian taken from the features in Wetzel’s pictures. “It made us all so proud to have an Indian on a big-time team. . . . It’s only a small group of radicals who oppose those names. Indians are proud of Indians.”

more

[langleyparkjoe]

If you don't like it, fine, call um the Skins.. call um Washington.. call um DC.. heck you can even call um the Warriors.

Other than that, the name isn't being changed so everyone should just get used to it by now.

[CanesSkins26]

If you don't like it, fine, call um the Skins.. call um Washington.. call um DC.. heck you can even call um the Warriors.

Other than that, the name isn't being changed so everyone should just get used to it by now.

+1

[TCIYM]

Even assuming they did change the name some useless, no-life, hind-tit sucking toolbag would find a reason to be offended by any name chosen. Some people also might want to be careful what they wish for before we end up with the Washington Snyders and The Danny's mug on the helmets.

[Red_One43]

DarthMonk wrote:

I am part Blackfoot myself and find the name somewhat offensive intellectually but not emotionally ... if that makes any sense.

I think I get what you are saying, but can you spell it out for the sense of discussion?

For what it's worth, the name Braves is way more honorific than the name Redskins.

How about sharing your reasons why you believe this?

In my opinion, Braves and Chiefs honor segments of the population of Native Americans. "Indians?" Is a term that belongs to the country of India and is a fogotten term thus we say Native Americans. The term "redskin" when used by folks outside of Native America is not honorable in most usuages; however, the team "Redskins" can easily be seen to honor the Native Americans by the use of a Native American designed helmet emblem and no silly antics like the "Tomahawk Chop." No one uses the team name "Redskins" to slur anyone or degrade Native Americans.

How can we have a name of a team called the "Redskins" but it is not politically correct to call people redskin today? It is clear that the Chiefs' and Braves' logos (Chief head dress and tomahawks and war paint) reflect HISTORY of a segment of the Native American population. It is not politically correct to call a Native American Chief or a Brave either. The name "Redskins" reflects HISTORY of the Native American people and it reflects both the glory of the red man and the sorrows of the red man - the battles that the Chiefs led brave warriors to fight for their land - the "Trail of Tears" where the red people were forced marched to leave their native lands for barren, desolate lands unfamiliar to them. To me, "Redskin" speaks the truth about HISTORY of the Native American people.

Having said all of the above, I acknowledge that there are people of different races who will always see the name as offensive. I don't have a problem with that as long as one respects my right to embrace a team that I see honors Native Americans. Who is right in this debate? Hail to the Redskins! Today, that is all that matters!

[DarthMonk]

DarthMonk wrote:

I am part Blackfoot myself and find the name somewhat offensive intellectually but not emotionally ... if that makes any sense.

I think I get what you are saying, but can you spell it out for the sense of discussion?

For what it's worth, the name Braves is way more honorific than the name Redskins.

How about sharing your reasons why you believe this?

OK - and please forgive any off topic junk from my earlier posts. Sorry.

Honestly, for the first one above the word "somewhat" is important. By way of example note that when you watch the news you never hear a reporter refer to a Cherokee or a Sioux or a member of any other tribe as a "redskin." It would sound very perjorative in that context. That would be intellectually obvious to almost any listener. On the other hand, I am NEVER emotionally offended when I hear my team called the "Redskins."

For the second one above "Brave" is a word used among many tribes to honor special people among them, typically courageous ones. If a Cherokee ever referred to a human being as a redskin it would not be to honor him in any way. It would simply be to differentiate him from another race during some sort of descriptive narritive.

Logos on helmets, tomohawk chops by fans, etc. are completely separate issues.

BTW - The "label" almost any tribal member prefers is the name of the tribe - Cherokee like to be called Cherokee, Sioux like to be called Sioux, etc.

Thanks.

DarthMonk

[VetSkinsFan]

DarthMonk wrote:

I am part Blackfoot myself and find the name somewhat offensive intellectually but not emotionally ... if that makes any sense.

I think I get what you are saying, but can you spell it out for the sense of discussion?

For what it's worth, the name Braves is way more honorific than the name Redskins.

How about sharing your reasons why you believe this?

In my opinion, Braves and Chiefs honor segments of the population of Native Americans. "Indians?" Is a term that belongs to the country of India and is a fogotten term thus we say Native Americans.

That's pretty funny, actually. The last two "Native Americans" that I've known that were raised on reservations referred to themselves as "Indians." And more frequently in conversations I hear "Indians," rather than "Native Americans." That mumbo jumbo is reserved for the PC people trying not to offend (and I use this term loosely) the people who are looking for reasons to be offended.

[DarthMonk]

+1 to your post at the bottom, VetSkinsFan!!!

George Carlin has (had) an interesting take which is an excellent 2-minute read:

Now, the Indians. I call them Indians because that's what they are. They're Indians. There's nothing wrong with the word Indian. First of all, it's important to know that the word Indian does not derive from Columbus mistakenly believing he had reached "India." India was not even called by that name in 1492; it was known as Hindustan. More likely, the word Indian comes from Columbus' description of the people he found here. He was an Italian, and did not speak or write very good Spanish, so in his written accounts he called the Indians, "Una gente in Dios." A people in God. In God. In Dios. Indians. It's a perfectly noble and respectable word.

So let's look at this pussified, trendy *sh$t* phrase, Native Americans. First of all, they're not natives. They came over the Bering land bridge from Asia, so they're not natives. There are no natives anywhere in the world. Everyone is from somewhere else. All people are refugees, immigrants, or aliens. If there were natives anywhere, they would be people who still live in the Great Rift valley in Africa where the human species arose. Everyone else is just visiting. So much for the "native" part of Native American.

As far as calling them "Americans" is concerned, do I even have to point out what an insult this is? Jesus Holy *sh$t* Christ!! We steal their hemisphere, kill twenty or so million of them, destroy five hundred separate cultures, herd the survivors onto the worst land we can find, and now we want to name them after ourselves? It's appalling. Haven't we done enough damage? Do we have to further degrade them by tagging them with the repulsive name of their conquerors?

And as far as these classroom liberals who insist on saying "Native American" are concerned, here's something they should be told: It's not up to you to name the people and tell them what they ought to be called. If you'd leave the classroom once in a while, you'd find that most Indians are insulted by the term Native American. The American Indian Movement will tell you that if you ask them.

The phrase "Native American" was invented by the U.S. government Department of the Interior in 1970. It is an inventory term used to keep track of people. It includes Hawaiians, Eskimos, Samoans, Micronesians, Polynesians, and Aleuts. Anyone who uses the phrase Native American is assisting the U.S. government in its effort to obliterate people's true identities.

Do you want to know what the Indians would like to be called? Their real names: Adirondack, Delaware, Massachuset, Narranganset, Potomac, Illinois, Miami, Alabama, Ottawa, Waco, Wichita, Mohave, Shasta, Yuma, Erie, Huron, Susquehanna, Natchez, Mobile, Yakima, Wallawalla, Muskogee, Spokan, Iowa, Missouri, Omaha, Kansa, Biloxi, Dakota, Hatteras, Klamath, Caddo, Tillamook, Washoe, Cayuga, Oneida, Onondaga, Seneca, Laguna, Santa Ana, Winnebago, Pecos, Cheyenne, Menominee, Yankton, Apalachee, Chinook, Catawba, Santa Clara, Taos, Arapaho, Blackfoot, Blackfeet, Chippewa, Cree, Mohawk, Tuscarora, Cherokee, Seminole, Choctaw, Chickasaw, Comanche, Shoshone, Two Kettle, Sans Arc, Chiricahua, Kiowa, Mescalero, Navajo, Nez Perce, Potawatomi, Shawnee, Pawnee, Chickahominy, Flathead, Santee, Assiniboin, Oglala, Miniconjou, Osage, Crow, Brule, Hunkpapa, Pima, Zuni, Hopi, Paiute, Creek, Kickapoo, Ojibwa, Shinnicock.

You know, you'd think it would be a fairly simple thing to come over to this continent, commit genocide, eliminate the forests, dam up the rivers, build our malls and massage parlors, sell our blenders and whoopee cushions, poison ourselves with chemicals, and let it go at that. But no. We have to compound the insult. Native Americans! I'm glad the Indians have gambling casinos now. It makes me happy that dimwitted white people are losing their rent money to the Indians. Maybe the Indians will get lucky and win their country back. Probably they wouldn't want it. Look what we did to it.

DarthMonk

DarthMonk wrote:

I am part Blackfoot myself and find the name somewhat offensive intellectually but not emotionally ... if that makes any sense.

I think I get what you are saying, but can you spell it out for the sense of discussion?

For what it's worth, the name Braves is way more honorific than the name Redskins.

How about sharing your reasons why you believe this?

In my opinion, Braves and Chiefs honor segments of the population of Native Americans. "Indians?" Is a term that belongs to the country of India and is a fogotten term thus we say Native Americans.

That's pretty funny, actually. The last two "Native Americans" that I've known that were raised on reservations referred to themselves as "Indians." And more frequently in conversations I hear "Indians," rather than "Native Americans." That mumbo jumbo is reserved for the PC people trying not to offend (and I use this term loosely) the people who are looking for reasons to be offended.

[TCIYM]

Love the Carlin post ...

[Red_One43]

DarthMonk wrote:

I am part Blackfoot myself and find the name somewhat offensive intellectually but not emotionally ... if that makes any sense.

I think I get what you are saying, but can you spell it out for the sense of discussion?

For what it's worth, the name Braves is way more honorific than the name Redskins.

How about sharing your reasons why you believe this?

Honestly, for the first one above the word "somewhat" is important. By way of example note that when you watch the news you never hear a reporter refer to a Cherokee or a Sioux or a member of any other tribe as a "redskin." It would sound very perjorative in that context. That would be intellectually obvious to almost any listener. On the other hand, I am NEVER emotionally offended when I hear my team called the "Redskins."

You do not hear news reporters referring to Cherokee or Sioux as "Chiefs" or "Braves" either. Generally referring to Native American as "chief" or as "brave" could be taken as insulting as well. Further, you don't hear reporters referring to the team "Redskins" as "redskin" either. Don't get your point here unless you are saying that the use of the team name "Redskins" is calling all Native Americans, "redskin." If you are then I suspect that you would like for the name to be changed.

So are you saying that we should change the name Redskins, but you personally can live with it?

Yet For the second one above "Brave" is a word used among many tribes to honor special people among them, typically courageous ones. If a Cherokee ever referred to a human being as a redskin it would not be to honor him in any way. It would simply be to differentiate him from another race during some sort of descriptive narritive.

Yes, "Brave," a certain segment of the population as I said. When "Braves" is used as a team name it is used in a historical sense, from the eyes of outsiders, honoring the glory of the "Warrior." "Braves" does not tell a honor of the whole population nor does it recognize the suffering and hardships of the people's history.

Over time words take on new contextual meaning. Over time new words are derived from old. Does "redskin" mean the same as "Redskins?" If so, then explain the results of the poll below.

In 2004, a poll by the Annenberg Public Policy Center at the University of Pennsylvania essentially confirmed the Sports Illustrated poll's findings, concluding that 91% of the American Indians surveyed in the 48 states on the mainland USA found the name acceptable.[7]

http://www.annenbergpublicpolicycenter. ... -24_pr.pdf

Concerning the Cherokee Tribe: Cherokees do not all speak with one tongue. Every culture has a counter culture. Believe it or not, I even have seen a Cherokee wearing a Redskin T-Shirt on a Cherokee reservation. I am not, for one minute, saying that this young man supports my view or anyone's view - I am pointing out that you are speaking of a traditional cultural belief that may or may not be held by a particular member.

Logos on helmets, tomohawk chops by fans, etc. are completely separate issues.

In your opinion, they can be a separate issue. Some people believe they are the same issue, but I do see where you might see them as separate issues. I would tend to agree.

BTW - The "label" almost any tribal member prefers is the name of the tribe - Cherokee like to be called Cherokee, Sioux like to be called Sioux, etc.

This is supported by hard core data - I have to agree with you here not just because of the data, but if given a choice a blanket description or a specific description that fits me, I would take it the specific description.

How does Redskins honor Native American people? I touched on this in a previous post. Sports franchises saw something in the Native peoples to name their teams after them much like Vikings or Fighting Irish. Obviously all these groups had traits that were admired by the franchise owners. Are you telling me African-Americans had no traits that were admired were admired by the owners - Buffalo Soldiers? - of course there would be no such honor - By the time the Redskins got their name, African Americans were no longer permitted to play in the NFL. My point - there was an intended honor in naming a franchise after Native Americans. Like I said earlier the names "Chiefs, Braves, Warriors" were not chosen from a Native American perspective, they were chosen from the perspective of Anglo owners thus we get the name (Redskins) one such Anglo owner chose, for a people or specifically a person from a race, who had traits that owner admired, a name that fit his perspective. Does it honor today? Depends on who you talk with. Check the polls?
I have not seen an argument that has proven that sports franchise chose their names to insult Native Americans.

[Red_One43]

DarthMonk wrote:

I am part Blackfoot myself and find the name somewhat offensive intellectually but not emotionally ... if that makes any sense.

I think I get what you are saying, but can you spell it out for the sense of discussion?

For what it's worth, the name Braves is way more honorific than the name Redskins.

How about sharing your reasons why you believe this?

In my opinion, Braves and Chiefs honor segments of the population of Native Americans. "Indians?" Is a term that belongs to the country of India and is a fogotten term thus we say Native Americans.

That's pretty funny, actually. The last two "Native Americans" that I've known that were raised on reservations referred to themselves as "Indians." And more frequently in conversations I hear "Indians," rather than "Native Americans." That mumbo jumbo is reserved for the PC people trying not to offend (and I use this term loosely) the people who are looking for reasons to be offended.

In my workplace, if we say "Indian," 99.99999 % of the time, we are speaking about a person from India. Perhaps my statement that the name "Indian" for Native Americans was disappearing was based too much on my workplace and government forms. I have no problem saying Indian for Native Americans - Watch this - "It is OK to say Native Americans are Indians." In my workplace, after so many years, one learns to stay politically correct so it is best not to go back in forth. Over the years, I have gotten accustomed to just sticking with the PC so I don't get into any situations. BTW check your government forms on some you do't even have a choice to put "Native American or American Indian." It will just say Native American. This where we are headed.

[Red_One43]

George Carlin has (had) an interesting take which is an excellent 2-minute read:

Now, the Indians. I call them Indians because that's what they are. They're Indians. There's nothing wrong with the word Indian. First of all, it's important to know that the word Indian does not derive from Columbus mistakenly believing he had reached "India." India was not even called by that name in 1492; it was known as Hindustan. More likely, the word Indian comes from Columbus' description of the people he found here. He was an Italian, and did not speak or write very good Spanish, so in his written accounts he called the Indians, "Una gente in Dios." A people in God. In God. In Dios. Indians. It's a perfectly noble and respectable word.

So let's look at this pussified, trendy *sh$t* phrase, Native Americans. First of all, they're not natives. They came over the Bering land bridge from Asia, so they're not natives. There are no natives anywhere in the world. Everyone is from somewhere else. All people are refugees, immigrants, or aliens. If there were natives anywhere, they would be people who still live in the Great Rift valley in Africa where the human species arose. Everyone else is just visiting. So much for the "native" part of Native American.

As far as calling them "Americans" is concerned, do I even have to point out what an insult this is? Jesus Holy *sh$t* Christ!! We steal their hemisphere, kill twenty or so million of them, destroy five hundred separate cultures, herd the survivors onto the worst land we can find, and now we want to name them after ourselves? It's appalling. Haven't we done enough damage? Do we have to further degrade them by tagging them with the repulsive name of their conquerors?

And as far as these classroom liberals who insist on saying "Native American" are concerned, here's something they should be told: It's not up to you to name the people and tell them what they ought to be called. If you'd leave the classroom once in a while, you'd find that most Indians are insulted by the term Native American. The American Indian Movement will tell you that if you ask them.

The phrase "Native American" was invented by the U.S. government Department of the Interior in 1970. It is an inventory term used to keep track of people. It includes Hawaiians, Eskimos, Samoans, Micronesians, Polynesians, and Aleuts. Anyone who uses the phrase Native American is assisting the U.S. government in its effort to obliterate people's true identities.

Do you want to know what the Indians would like to be called? Their real names: Adirondack, Delaware, Massachuset, Narranganset, Potomac, Illinois, Miami, Alabama, Ottawa, Waco, Wichita, Mohave, Shasta, Yuma, Erie, Huron, Susquehanna, Natchez, Mobile, Yakima, Wallawalla, Muskogee, Spokan, Iowa, Missouri, Omaha, Kansa, Biloxi, Dakota, Hatteras, Klamath, Caddo, Tillamook, Washoe, Cayuga, Oneida, Onondaga, Seneca, Laguna, Santa Ana, Winnebago, Pecos, Cheyenne, Menominee, Yankton, Apalachee, Chinook, Catawba, Santa Clara, Taos, Arapaho, Blackfoot, Blackfeet, Chippewa, Cree, Mohawk, Tuscarora, Cherokee, Seminole, Choctaw, Chickasaw, Comanche, Shoshone, Two Kettle, Sans Arc, Chiricahua, Kiowa, Mescalero, Navajo, Nez Perce, Potawatomi, Shawnee, Pawnee, Chickahominy, Flathead, Santee, Assiniboin, Oglala, Miniconjou, Osage, Crow, Brule, Hunkpapa, Pima, Zuni, Hopi, Paiute, Creek, Kickapoo, Ojibwa, Shinnicock.

You know, you'd think it would be a fairly simple thing to come over to this continent, commit genocide, eliminate the forests, dam up the rivers, build our malls and massage parlors, sell our blenders and whoopee cushions, poison ourselves with chemicals, and let it go at that. But no. We have to compound the insult. Native Americans! I'm glad the Indians have gambling casinos now. It makes me happy that dimwitted white people are losing their rent money to the Indians. Maybe the Indians will get lucky and win their country back. Probably they wouldn't want it. Look what we did to it.

Carlin was definitely one of the best, but what he was saying was simply not true:

The best way to determine the truth in cases like this, Steve, is to go to the source--in this case, Columbus's original letter, through which word of the new lands and their inhabitants was disseminated throughout Europe (see links below). In this letter Columbus repeatedly refers to India and Indians, and says nothing whatever about "a people in God."

http://www.straightdope.com/columns/rea ... te-in-dios

I still enjoyed the post though. LMAO!

[Red_One43]

Posted: Tue Mar 22, 2011 12:15 pm Post subject: Fromm the "Petty" Thread

DarthMonk wrote:

I attend games by "scalping" for face value off craigslist. I sing "Hail to the Redskins" when we score. I love the old words:

I do not associate "scalping" as a Native American" only action . I don't criticize anyone who does, but when I hear the word, I don't associate it as uniquely Native American.

http://www.hawthorneinsalem.org/Scholar ... D2263.html
Hail to the Redskins!

Hail Victory!

Braves on the Warpath!

Fight for old Dixie!

Run or pass and score -- we want a lot more!

Scalp 'em, swamp 'em -- We will take 'em big score

Read 'em, weep 'em, touchdown - we want heap more

Fight on, Fight on -- 'Till you have won

Sons of Wash-ing-ton. Rah!, Rah!, Rah!

Peace out my brothers, please!

DarthMonk

The fact that you state you love these words below are evidence that we all draw different lines on what we feel is offensive to us. You feel that "Redskins" is intellectualy offense to you, but you don't find these words are offensive. What does the Cherokee tribe say about these words?

Scalp 'em, swamp 'em -- We will take 'em big score

Read 'em, weep 'em, touchdown - we want heap more

My point - Each of us for whatever our reasons pick and choose what is offensive or not. I don't judge another person for what he believes is offensive or not, but I do love to debate and discuss.

I love the Hail to the Redskins song as well. "Fight for Dixie"? I don't find it offense, but if it were still used today, I would ask how is it relevant. I am not offended by the "Scalp'em, swamp' em" either, but I can understand how folks would ask the same thing. These are borderline caricatured words - I say borderline because by definition caricatured means intended distortion to poke fun. I know the song was not intended to poke fun at Native Americans. Just as "Dixie" was changed, it is quite possible that later these words might be changed, but I don't advocate it.

I don't want the name "Redskins" changed. I find it easier to defend the name, "Redskins" than defend "scalp'em, swamp'em."

This subject is sensitive. Disagree with me or attack my arguments - I have no problem.

[langleyparkjoe]

I'm crossing out Redskins and putting "Warriors" on it. "Hail to the warriors, hail victory.. Braves on the warpath....."

I like it. Warriors. Lets just start a rumor on twitter or Facebook and say its officially been changed.

[grampi]

Now if you want to argue that a team could name themselves the honkeys, chinks, japs, negroes, spics, etc; etc; and that would be ok, go right ahead. But that is unfortunately where our team name fits.

That's where you, and the rest of the anti-Redskins name crowd is wrong. Those words were conceived with the intent to be derogatory. The Redskins team name was not.

[DarthMonk]

Honestly, for the first one above the word "somewhat" is important. By way of example note that when you watch the news you never hear a reporter refer to a Cherokee or a Sioux or a member of any other tribe as a "redskin." It would sound very perjorative in that context. That would be intellectually obvious to almost any listener. On the other hand, I am NEVER emotionally offended when I hear my team called the "Redskins."

You do not hear news reporters referring to Cherokee or Sioux as "Chiefs" or "Braves" either. Generally referring to Native American as "chief" or as "brave" could be taken as insulting as well. Further, you don't hear reporters referring to the team "Redskins" as "redskin" either. Don't get your point here unless you are saying that the use of the team name "Redskins" is calling all Native Americans, "redskin." If you are then I suspect that you would like for the name to be changed.

This was quite a long post and I doubt anyone wants to read my point-by-point of it so I just chose to quote the above quote from me and your response to it.

Actually, one does hear reporters say "Cherokee chief" and "Sioux brave" and the like. One never hears the reporter say "the redskin." When several tribes meet there is often a gatheriing of chiefs and it is refered to that way. The general meeting of all tribes is never refered to as a meeting of redskins.

Next, I was very careful in the post you quoted to distinguish between Redskin and redskin. My poiint that you say you don't get is that redskin would be perjorative as a reference to a tribal member in a news report while I do not mind hearing my team called the Redskins. So you can put a suspicion that I want the team name changed to bed.

There are many other things you mentioned which I agree with or not or simply find amusing. Since I never said redskin means the same as Redskin I have no need to explain the poll you cited. I also never said all Cherokke speak the same tongue and though you say "believe it or not" I have no trouble believing you have "even seen a Cherokee wearing a Redskin T-Shirt on a Cherokee reservation" which, by the way, does not contradict anything I said. I'm sure that woman would prefer being called a Cherokee rather than a redskiin (with a lower case r in case you weren't sure).

A logo on a helmet and a tomohawk chop are completely seperate from a reporter refering to a generic tribal member as a redskin.

Finally, you misquoted me slightly when you wrote "You feel that "Redskins" is intellectualy offense (sic) to you" when what I wrote was this: "I am part Blackfoot myself and find the name somewhat offensive intellectually but not emotionally ... if that makes any sense." I then explained that precisely at your request and was quite careful to distinguish redskin from Redskin when I did so.

PS - Our team name does not need to be defended by anyone for my sake.

DarthMonk

[Red_One43]

Honestly, for the first one above the word "somewhat" is important. By way of example note that when you watch the news you never hear a reporter refer to a Cherokee or a Sioux or a member of any other tribe as a "redskin." It would sound very perjorative in that context. That would be intellectually obvious to almost any listener. On the other hand, I am NEVER emotionally offended when I hear my team called the "Redskins."

You do not hear news reporters referring to Cherokee or Sioux as "Chiefs" or "Braves" either. Generally referring to Native American as "chief" or as "brave" could be taken as insulting as well. Further, you don't hear reporters referring to the team "Redskins" as "redskin" either. Don't get your point here unless you are saying that the use of the team name "Redskins" is calling all Native Americans, "redskin." If you are then I suspect that you would like for the name to be changed.

Actually, one does hear reporters say "Cherokee chief" and "Sioux brave" and the like. One never hears the reporter say "the redskin." When several tribes meet there is often a gatheriing of chiefs and it is refered to that way. The general meeting of all tribes is never refered to as a meeting of redskins.

Yes, not only do reporters refer to chiefs as chiefs so do a lot of people who give respect to a title. My quote was:

Generally referring to Native American as "chief" or as "brave" could be taken as insulting as well.

So again saying that you don't hear reporters calling Cherokee or Sioux as "redskin," you seem to implying that someone is referring to them as "redskin." Since we are taking about the team name "Redskin," it sounds like you are saying that the team name is referring to Cherokee and Sioux. I don't feel the name is referring to Native Americans, today Just like The KC Chiefs and Atlanta Braves aren't referring to today. Those names honor the bravery and military intelligence of the history of Native AMericans. I am saying that "Redskins" honors not only the warefare, but it honors the endurance of the all the people to survive the prejudice and other atrocities heaped on them. "Redskins " is not a today name. It honors the history. Just like "Warriors, Braves ands Chiefs" do. The logos of these teams tell you it is talkikng about history. You seem to be making it as such with your reporter analogy.

Next, I was very careful in the post you quoted to distinguish between Redskin and redskin. My poiint that you say you don't get is that redskin would be perjorative as a reference to a tribal member in a news report while I do not mind hearing my team called the Redskins. So you can put a suspicion that I want the team name changed to bed.

I don't think that are many folks that will disagree with you about the term, "redskin" is perjorative, but who is talking about "redskin?" We are talking about the team name "Redskins." I don't get your analogy and I have no suspisions of what you believe - I straight up asked you what you believe for clarification and if you don't want to straight up answer, I respect that. I simply didn't and still don't get your analogy unless you are saying the terms are one in the same. If you are't saying that - what are you saying?

There are many other things you mentioned which I agree with or not or simply find amusing. Since I never said redskin means the same as Redskin I have no need to explain the poll you cited.

I am hoping that you have no need but a want to discuss debate with me on this topic. After all it was you who gave your opinions about what you perceived was happening in the discussion with Oops. I don't have a problem with you saying the things you said, but you gave opinions and opened yourself up for questions.

I also never said all Cherokke speak the same tongue and though you say "believe it or not" I have no trouble believing you have "even seen a Cherokee wearing a Redskin T-Shirt on a Cherokee reservation" which, by the way, does not contradict anything I said. I'm sure that woman would prefer being called a Cherokee rather than a redskiin (with a lower case r in case you weren't sure).

Once again, you state the obvious as if you are telling me something that I don't know. It is a well documented fact that people prefered to be called by their name or a name that they choose.

When it comes to the team name of "Redskins," no one is saying that Cherokees prefer Cherokee over "Redskins" but you bring up the Cherokees prefer the name of Cherokee over "redskin." Once again, you seem to implying the team name and "redskin" are on in the same when one is meant to be historical and the other is still in use today as a derogatory term.

A logo on a helmet and a tomohawk chop are completely seperate from a reporter refering to a generic tribal member as a redskin.

Excuse me on this one, I thought you were talking about the argument of using music, dance, costumes, tomahawks, spears and other items that teams with Native American referenced teams use. These items are under attack. A Cherokee tribe member told me that our chiefs don't wear those headdresses. He was pretty upset with the those dressed up as "chiefs" with that headdress. So I was saying to some it is part of the debate.

Finally, you misquoted me slightly when you wrote "You feel that "Redskins" is intellectualy offense (sic) to you" when what I wrote was this: "I am part Blackfoot myself and find the name somewhat offensive intellectually but not emotionally ... if that makes any sense." I then explained that precisely at your request and was quite careful to distinguish redskin from Redskin when I did so.

precisely? I guess we will have to agree to disagree on this one.

PS - Our team name does not need to be defended by anyone for my sake.

Oh but it does and has been in the courts. We all know that htis issue will keep coming up. So there will be future threads. I don't plan on starting any, but I will be sure to be in the discussion not that my 2 cents will solve anything - I just love this site.

[Red_One43]

Now if you want to argue that a team could name themselves the honkeys, chinks, japs, negroes, spics, etc; etc; and that would be ok, go right ahead. But that is unfortunately where our team name fits.

That's where you, and the rest of the anti-Redskins name crowd is wrong. Those words were conceived with the intent to be derogatory. The Redskins team name was not.

Right on, Grampi!!!

[Red_One43]

I'm crossing out Redskins and putting "Warriors" on it. "Hail to the warriors, hail victory.. Braves on the warpath....."

I like it. Warriors. Lets just start a rumor on twitter or Facebook and say its officially been changed.

Even that won't work unless you do like the Golden State Warriors in the NBA and remove all references to Native Americans, you will still get flak.

[langleyparkjoe]

red..we jus cant win

[TCIYM]

If they are going to change the name I would like to suggest the Washington REMFs. Military personnel will get the reference.

[DarthMonk]

It's becoming comedy, bro. You actaully seem to understand my points better than almost anyone and after massaging my words for a while tell me you don't understand. There are way too many things to try to straighten out. I hope everyone understands this. It is precise and straightforward without a hidden agenda:

I'm fine with the name of our team. It is the Redskins.

PS - Our team name does not need to be defended by anyone for my sake.

Oh but it does and has been in the courts. We all know that htis issue will keep coming up. So there will be future threads. I don't plan on starting any, but I will be sure to be in the discussion not that my 2 cents will solve anything - I just love this site.

Not for my sake.

But if you feel the need, or desire - have at it.

DarthMonk

[Red_One43]

If they are going to change the name I would like to suggest the Washington REMFs. Military personnel will get the reference.

Got It! Now, why would you want to go an honor those guys?

[Red_One43]

red..we jus cant win

LPJ, Let's at least hope we can win on the field this year whenever that starts. Hail to the Redskins!