SkinsHead56 wrote:On the contrary as meeting American Indians is not uncommon for you, you should have plenty of opportunities to use this honored term as you address the people you know.
cvillehog wrote:SkinsHead56 wrote:On the contrary as meeting American Indians is not uncommon for you, you should have plenty of opportunities to use this honored term as you address the people you know.
No. As has already been stated, "redskin" is not a currently-used term. It would be akin to running around insisting on only speaking in the common vernacular of the 1820s.
SkinsHead56 wrote:cvillehog wrote:SkinsHead56 wrote:On the contrary as meeting American Indians is not uncommon for you, you should have plenty of opportunities to use this honored term as you address the people you know.
No. As has already been stated, "redskin" is not a currently-used term. It would be akin to running around insisting on only speaking in the common vernacular of the 1820s.
Not currently used except for the trade mark on my hat that says 2005.
SkinsJock wrote:You're right cville! This is constantly taken out of context by insinuating that you might call someone a name that you know is offensive.
SkinsJock wrote:Exactly! altho, we have a couple of guys? up here that would love to be referred to as ...well, you get the picture! I just would not, in normal conversation refer to someone as something which I do not think they are. I try and not call people names.
I grew up in Fiji and we called the natives Fijians and the people who came to live and work in Fiji from India, Indians. The people who lived there who were white were all called Europeans even though they may have been born in New Zealand or Australia.
One of the best rugby teams in the world is the "All Blacks" - this team is primarily white with a few Maoris and even some natives from Fiji and Samoa that live in NZ!
The offense here is only taken or perceived by certain people who just want to make a "case" out of it each year.
The only people that we refer to as Redskins IMO are the Washington Redskins football team!
SkinsJock wrote:Exactly! altho, we have a couple of guys? up here that would love to be referred to as ...well, you get the picture! I just would not, in normal conversation refer to someone as something which I do not think they are. I try and not call people names.
I grew up in Fiji and we called the natives Fijians and the people who came to live and work in Fiji from India, Indians. The people who lived there who were white were all called Europeans even though they may have been born in New Zealand or Australia.
One of the best rugby teams in the world is the "All Blacks" - this team is primarily white with a few Maoris and even some natives from Fiji and Samoa that live in NZ!
The offense here is only taken or perceived by certain people who just want to make a "case" out of it each year.
The only people that we refer to as Redskins IMO are the Washington Redskins football team!
!
jeremyroyce wrote:It doesn't matter whether Washington, Virginia or Maryland is attached to it. It is a racist word period. Are you saying that if the team was called the Washington N-----s, the N-word here wouldn't be just as offensive?
How can the Redskin word be racist if this name is not used at all othen then to address the Washington Redskins.. Do people use the N word that you included.? yes.. they do use that word.. so if a team called themself that name that then would be different... When have you ever heard someone call sombody a Redskin to offend someone....? The N word is always used all the time.. I hear people saying it all the time to offend people.. Just like people use profanity that offends people.. Are they going to create a law, where you can't use profanity...? Because it offends....? I think that just about everything would be outlawed if they were to do that because alot of people are offended by various things... And let me add this... there are over 90,000 fans that feel the same way I do.. The Redskins have the biggest stadium in the N.F.L. You think for one momemnt, that if this name was racist, you think that the Redskins would get over 90,000 fans for one game...? I don't think so.. You think that Joe Gibbs would work for a team with a racist name.. With Joe Gibbs being a Christian...? No way..
stwasm wrote:1niksder wrote:stwasm wrote:For you to say "get over it" shows a real lack of sensitivity to minorities and the oppression they've faced over the last 400 years. Until you understand the Native American experience, or that of any minority, for that matter, you can't possibly understand the pain and hatred certain terms evoke. It's a racist name and you're kidding yourself if you believe it isn't.
The word Redskin is considered a racist term. When refering to the NFL franchise that represents Washington, is based in Virgina and plays it home games in Maryland the term "redskin" is not used disparagingly. So I see no problem with this.
It doesn't matter whether Washington, Virginia or Maryland is attached to it. It is a racist word period. Are you saying that if the team was called the Washington N-----s, the N-word here wouldn't be just as offensive?
SkinsJock wrote:I grew up in Fiji and ...
SkinsJock wrote:FYI - The New Zealand rugby team, the "All Blacks" will typically do a war dance called a "haka" before their matches - this is always led by a native (Maori) and involves a lot of gestures towards and specifically directed at the opposing team.
Saturday, July 16, 2005; Page B01
Native American groups won another chance yesterday to challenge trademarks covering the name and logo of the Washington Redskins, which the groups say disparage millions of people.
The football franchise had appeared to prevail in the longstanding trademark fight when a federal judge ruled in its favor nearly two years ago. But yesterday the U.S. Court of Appeals said the case deserves another look because one of the plaintiffs might have been unfairly denied the right to pursue it.
