The-Hogs.net - Washington Football Discussion, Redskins to Commanders Era

Burgundy&GoldForever wrote:There are 566 federally recognized tribes. Not one of them supports the term "Redskins." Not one.

Further away from Indian Country and closer to Redskins Country, Patowomeck tribe chief Robert Green told the Richmond Times Dispatch last year, “About 98 percent of my tribe is Redskins fans, and it doesn’t offend them, either.” Kevin Brown, Pamunkey chief, told the paper: "I like the uniforms. I like the symbol."

Deadskins wrote:

Burgundy&GoldForever wrote:There are 566 federally recognized tribes. Not one of them supports the term "Redskins." Not one.

Are you sure about that?

Further away from Indian Country and closer to Redskins Country, Patowomeck tribe chief Robert Green told the Richmond Times Dispatch last year, “About 98 percent of my tribe is Redskins fans, and it doesn’t offend them, either.” Kevin Brown, Pamunkey chief, told the paper: "I like the uniforms. I like the symbol."

http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-Spor ... dskins-Box

Burgundy&GoldForever wrote:

Deadskins wrote:

Burgundy&GoldForever wrote:There are 566 federally recognized tribes. Not one of them supports the term "Redskins." Not one.

Are you sure about that?

Further away from Indian Country and closer to Redskins Country, Patowomeck tribe chief Robert Green told the Richmond Times Dispatch last year, “About 98 percent of my tribe is Redskins fans, and it doesn’t offend them, either.” Kevin Brown, Pamunkey chief, told the paper: "I like the uniforms. I like the symbol."

http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-Spor ... dskins-Box

I'm sure.

The Patawomeck Tribe is recognized by the state of Virginia but not federally.

Green claims to have retired in 2013.

Some in the Patawomeck Tribe and several other Virginia Tribes dispute Green's actually being a Chief. There are no traceable bloodlines.

http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.c ... ame-149600

mastdark81 wrote:From what I read the term Redskins was based upon ONE tribe and not representative of all Native American Tribes. So if this is the true case what other Native Americans feel (even though the majority don't care) it doesn't matter.

Burgundy&GoldForever wrote:Speaking of things that won't go away ...

There are 566 federally recognized tribes. Not one of them supports the term "Redskins." Not one. Something about this poll doesn't jibe with that.

Having said that, Hail To The Redskins. Hail Victory. Braves On The Warpath. Fight For Old D.C. My football team is not offended by the term.

Irn-Bru wrote:

Burgundy&GoldForever wrote:Speaking of things that won't go away ...

There are 566 federally recognized tribes. Not one of them supports the term "Redskins." Not one. Something about this poll doesn't jibe with that.

Having said that, Hail To The Redskins. Hail Victory. Braves On The Warpath. Fight For Old D.C. My football team is not offended by the term.

A number of Native American schools use Redskins as their team name, with pride. I'm not sure what the context of "this tribe does / does not support it" is, but on an individual level and even institutionally it's pretty clear that the name is not generally regarded as racist and is embraced in the particular context of sports teams.

Burgundy&GoldForever wrote:One need look no further than Blacks and their use of what was once (and probably still is) defined as the single most offensive word in the English language as a term of reference to other Blacks.

Deadskins wrote:

Burgundy&GoldForever wrote:One need look no further than Blacks and their use of what was once (and probably still is) defined as the single most offensive word in the English language as a term of reference to other Blacks.

When you use the word "Blacks" to describe that race, what are you referring to? Is it the "Red" that's the offensive part of "Redskins?" If so, why? It's interesting that red, brown, and yellow are offensive colors, but black and white are not. And, the offensive word you mention did not originate with people of that race, like the word "redskins" did. Apples and oranges.

Burgundy&GoldForever wrote:

mastdark81 wrote:From what I read the term Redskins was based upon ONE tribe and not representative of all Native American Tribes. So if this is the true case what other Native Americans feel (even though the majority don't care) it doesn't matter.

Context matters, as far as I am concerned. If I'm referring to my football team then no Native Americans were called redskins in the process.

If I'm standing on a reservation, especially given I am not Native American, then someone might find it insulting. I'm not likely to use the term there.

It might seem like a double standard but it's tolerated, if not accepted for people of a race to use racial epithets that refer to their own race. It's not OK for those of another race to do so.

One need look no further than Blacks and their use of what was once (and probably still is) defined as the single most offensive word in the English language as a term of reference to other Blacks.

And yet, anyone not Black using the term is immediately labeled a racist.

I imagine it's the same with every race.

Native Americans have said, even in some of these interviews about the name, that they refer to one another as "Skins." They do. That doesn't mean non-Native Americans do or should.

Here is really the issue with not only the word Redskins but with any language:

Whose context matters? The speaker's? Or the listener's?

The answer is: It depends on where you are.

We're on a Washington Redskins message board and I don't need a poll to tell me it's OK to Hail To My Redskins here.

mastdark81 wrote:There is a difference between the n word with a "er" and n word with an "a" at the end. These are two different words.

OldSchool wrote:I don't think you could get 90% of Americans to support motherhood, 90% is well beyond definitive. The American Indian peoples support the name.

That said the PC crowd will raise this again because victimhood is their life's blood they must have victims to advocate for it doesn't matter to them how the real living human beings care about it.

mastdark81 wrote:There is a difference between the n word with a "er" and n word with an "a" at the end. These are two different words. Blacks that I know have never used "er." When blacks have been called that word by other races its the "er" one. So what I'm trying to say is blacks don't actually call each other the racist term. Words evolve rather or not their origins are disparaging or not. Look at the large billion dollar e-mail company "Yahoo", in the dictionary it means rude, noisy, or violent person. synonyms: redneck, boor, lout, oaf; barbarian, Neanderthal, brute, thug; roughneck. Today most people think of an e-mail rather than a redneck when the word is used. Same with the Redskins. Majority of the world think football, because it is a football team that have never showed anything but honor Native Americans.


I think one thing folks fail to realize is what group they are aligning to. It is deeper and more to it than the just name. If you do your proper research The Susan Harjos want to get rid of all logos, images, & names with Native American symbolism. First stop for them is the Redskins because let us all admit is the most popular icon for NA in the sports culture. Next it will be the Chiefs and yes even the Braves. This small group want all of these names and images gone!

Burgundy&GoldForever wrote:

Deadskins wrote:

Burgundy&GoldForever wrote:One need look no further than Blacks and their use of what was once (and probably still is) defined as the single most offensive word in the English language as a term of reference to other Blacks.

When you use the word "Blacks" to describe that race, what are you referring to? Is it the "Red" that's the offensive part of "Redskins?" If so, why? It's interesting that red, brown, and yellow are offensive colors, but black and white are not. And, the offensive word you mention did not originate with people of that race, like the word "redskins" did. Apples and oranges.

I use "Black" because it is the currently preferred term so far as I am aware. I'm not certain of your age or race so you may already be fully aware that once upon a time there were different terms which were preferred. Negro and Colored were two of those. That misses the point. Blacks can call each other those words because they are words which refer specifically to Blacks. Likewise Native Americans can call each other Redskins because it is a word which refers specifically to Indians. I'm not saying they should or even that it's a good idea. Not every Black uses those terms and not every Indian uses redskin or skin. There is disagreement. What I am saying is that it has rarely been acceptable for people of one race to refer to people of a different race by a racial slur.

That's not apples to oranges. That's Blacks to Blacks. That's Indians to Indians. That's any race to the same race.

Deadskins wrote:You don't understand what I'm saying at all. I'm saying that the N word and Redskins are apples to oranges, because one was not coined by the race to which it refers. One was coined as a brutal slur and the other was coined as a source of pride in a people's heritage. Obviously, context matters a great deal, and the speaker and recipient might have their own opinions about the words, but the fact is, the two words are not comparable because they have vastly different origins.

Burgundy&GoldForever wrote:

Deadskins wrote:You don't understand what I'm saying at all. I'm saying that the N word and Redskins are apples to oranges, because one was not coined by the race to which it refers. One was coined as a brutal slur and the other was coined as a source of pride in a people's heritage. Obviously, context matters a great deal, and the speaker and recipient might have their own opinions about the words, but the fact is, the two words are not comparable because they have vastly different origins.

I wouldn't make that historical meaning argument because making that argument means historically the word beginning with n and ending with r was a gross mispronunciation of the Spanish word negro by Southern French Creole White plantation owners. It referred to slaves and was obviously not a positive term. Therefore, no one should be using it based upon the historical context.

Now, if you want to have a double standard for redskins that's up to you, but historically that term has been used more negatively than positively, despite the benign origins of the well-intentioned Penobscot.

Are you familiar with the Phips Proclamation?



There are also hundreds of book references and movie references to the term Redskins in a negative context, which is why it is defined as a slur. They go back 100 years in determining commonality of usage.

Therefore, I would argue the commonality of current usage in both cases, not the historical usage.

The commonality of usage of Redskins in 2016 is highly favorable to the Washington football team.

mastdark81 wrote:The caption stating Red-skin doesnt prove that the word is racist. It just proves the people may have been who wrote it based upon the comtext. But Im sure that can even be debatable bc just bc u go to war with a group doesnt mean you hate their race...sometimes it just mean there is some political or capital from a certain group.

Its just like if a paper was produced in America in that said $200 bounty on "arabs" in the Saudi Arabian war. Just a term to decribe who they are at war with. Many Native Americans identified their ownselfs as redskinned before caucasians ever came to the US. Im sure you can find context where it was used with negativity but also positivity. Red nor Skin are negative...only if you put for ex. "dirty" "stupid"...a negative adjective b4 it.

But for the people 1 out 10 that feel it is offensive, I just tell them dont support it. Thats just my opinion. I dont think no one can be sure of anything unless we had a time machine.

Phips Proclamation
1755

A PROCLAMATION



Whereas the Tribe of Penobscot Indians have repeatedly in a perfidious manner acted contrary to their Solemn Submission unto his Majesty long since mad and frequently renewed. I have therefore at the desire of the House of Representatives with the Advice of his Majesty's Council thought fit to issue the Proclamation and to declare the Penobscot tribe of Indians to be Enemies, Rebells, and Traitors to his Majesty King George the Second.



And I do hereby require his Majesty's Subjects of this Province to Embrace all opportunities of pursuing, captivating, killing and Destroying all and every of the aforesaid Indians.



And whereas the General Court of the Province have Voted that a bounty or Incouragement be granted and allowed to be paid out of the public Treasury to the Marching Forces that shall have been employed for the Defence of the Eastern and Western Frontiers from the first of the twenty-fifth of this Instant November — I have thought fit to publish the same and I do hereby Promis that there shall be paid out of the Province Treasury to all and any of the said Forces over and above their Bounty upon inlistment, their Wages and Subsistance the Premiums or Bounty following viz.



For every Male Penobscot Indian above the Age of twelve years that shall be taken within the Time aforesaid and brought to Boston Fifty Pounds.



For every Female Penobscot Indian taken and brought in as aforesaid and for Every Male Indian Prisoner under the age of twelve Years taken and brought in as aforesaid Twenty five Pounds.



For every Scalp of such Female Indian or Male Indian under the Age of twelve years that Shall be killed and brought in as Evidence of their being killed as aforesaid, Twenty pounds.



Given at the Council Chamber in Boston this third day of November 1755 and in the twenty ninth Year of the Reign of our Sovereign Lord George the second by the Grace of God of Great Britain France and Ireland King Defender of the Faith.



S. PHIPS
By his Honour's Command,
J. WILLARD, Secry.
God save the King.



Resolved That there shall be allowed and paid out of the Public Treasury to any Number of the Inhabitants of this province, not in the pay of the Government, Who shall be disposed to go in quest of the Indian enemy, & shall before they go signify in Writing to the Chief Military Officer of Yt. part of the Province from which they shall go, their Intentions, with their names the following Bounty Vizt. For every Indian Enemy that they shall kill and produce the Scalp to the Gov. & Council in Evidence, the Sum of three hundred Pounds.



For Every Indian Enemy that shall Captivate & deliver to the Governor & Council, the Sum of Three hundred and Twenty pounds.
Also, --Voted, That the same allowance be made to private Persons who shall captivate or kill any of the Indian Enemy which is made to soldiers on the Frontiers of the Province.

Burgundy&GoldForever wrote:I reiterate, historical usage is not an argument I would make in favor of the name. Current usage is the argument I would make.

Irn-Bru wrote:

Burgundy&GoldForever wrote:I reiterate, historical usage is not an argument I would make in favor of the name. Current usage is the argument I would make.

"Earliest instance of its use, historically" is not the same as "historical usage." When the Redskins adopted the name in 1930, what was the context? Were they taking the equivalent of the n-word and using it as a slur? No. It was chosen in homage to Native Americans and had their support then, too — for example, from the chief who designed our awesome logo to go with the name.

The historical usage supports the idea that the team name represents honor, respect, and pride and not racism.

It's the people arguing that the name must be changed who say that current use is more important than any appeal to history. Language changes and all that, therefore you're out of date and need to change, bigot. That's the essence of John Oliver's bit on it — among the preening op-eds and TV spots from many, many other white journalists. Polls like this one show that they are way overstating their case, if not just plain wrong.