One vote for changing "Redskins"

George1963 wrote:



It's not only about skin color. It was originally about what color they painted their faces when they went in to battle. It's what they called themselves. The first known published use of the term is a quote from an Indian on the progress of treaty talks between the "Red Skins and the White Skins."


The origin of the word "[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]" is debated. Some scholars say that the word was coined by early settlers in reference to the skin tone of Native Americans. [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] senior linguist and curator emeritus [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] asserts that the actual origin of the word is benign and reflects more positive aspects of early relations between Native Americans and whites. It emerged at a specific time in history among a small group of men linked by joint activities that provided the context that brought it forth.^{[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]} That context was the need for a term that all could use in negotiating treaties during the late 18th and early 19th centuries.^{[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]} It is later that the term became more pejorative. A linguistic analysis of books published between 1875 and 1930 show an increasingly negative context in the use of redskin, often in association with "dirty", "lying", etc.; while benign or positive usage such as "noble" redskin were used in a condescending manner.^{[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]} The term continued in common use until the 1960s, as evidenced in Western movies, but is now largely considered a pejorative and is seldom used publicly aside from football teams. As with any term perceived to be discriminatory, different individuals may hold differing opinions of the term's appropriateness.


That says enough for me.  I don't see anything in there about painting their faces red.  I also don't see in there anything like "Its what they called themselves."  I do see a reference in there that "redskin" was often used in association with "dirty" and "lying".  The point here in today's world of 2013 is:  Why keep something so controvertial?  What's the point?   

We can do better.  Time to upgrade.  Its that simple. 

Proud of my stance.  But again, not my call. 

Dan Snyder can do whatever he wants.  Its his team.

CatalinaMinx wrote:Great examples, George, Thanks for posting them. 


Add this one to George's collection.  Its from the NCAI (stands for National Congress of American Indians).  The more examples and viewpoints in the examples posted, the better, right?  No need to thank me posting like you did George.  Its not necessary.


“The report NCAI has released today provides the history of an overwhelming movement to end the era of harmful “Indian” mascots – including the fact that Native peoples have fought these mascots since 1963 and no professional sports team has established a new ‘Indian’ mascot since 1964. 


There is one thing that we can agree with the Washington football team about - the name ‘Redsk*ns’ is a reflection of the team’s legacy and history. Unfortunately, the team’s legacy and history is an ugly one, rooted in racism and discrimination, including the origins of the team’s name. It is becoming more and more obvious that the team’s legacy on racial equality is to remain on the wrong side of history for as long as possible.


The team’s original owner, George Preston Marshall, named the team the ‘Redsk*ns’ in 1932, just months before he led a 13-year league wide ban on African American players in the NFL. Nearly 30 years after the race-based name was chosen, Marshall was forced by the league to hire the team’s first black player in 1962. He was the last NFL owner to do so.


We’ve released this report and have a firm position on this issue because the welfare and future of our youth is at stake. We are working every day to ensure they are able to grow up and thrive in healthy, supportive communities. Removing these harmful mascots is just one part of our effort to encourage our children to achieve their greatest potential. We’re focused on their future; these mascots keep society focused on the negative stereotypes of the past."

George1963 wrote:

 As I said before, it's a minority of a minority that get worked up over it. 


"A minoritiy of a minority" is an interesting point.  Even if true, still doesn't make it right.  If its wrong to a "minority of a minority", its still wrong. 

Here is what Dan Synder's lawyer Lanny Davis said about the notion that its only a vocal few who are offended.  He says "it doesn't matter what the number is."  He says the "quantity" is not the issue.

Dan Snyder's lawyer.

His words.  Not mine.

One other sort of interesting exchange happened earlier. Kushner asked Davis whether, as a Jew, he might be inclined to be sympathetic to the cause of an aggrieved minority group.
“I am,” Davis said. “For me, it doesn’t matter what the number is; if you’re offending someone, you should be sorry for that. Especially a religious or ethnic group that’s been persecuted over the years, the way that Native Americans have. Shame on American history, what we did to Native Americans, we being the white man. And Jews have a history of persecution; for goodness sakes, the Holocaust. So I couldn’t agree with you more; we have to be respectful of every injured feeling, and it’s not a quantity.

guppy wrote:

CatalinaMinx wrote:Great examples, George, Thanks for posting them. 


Add this one to George's collection.  Its from the NCAI (stands for National Congress of American Indians).  The more examples and viewpoints in the examples posted, the better, right? 

George1963 wrote:

guppy wrote:

CatalinaMinx wrote:Great examples, George, Thanks for posting them. 


Add this one to George's collection.  Its from the NCAI (stands for National Congress of American Indians).  The more examples and viewpoints in the examples posted, the better, right? 

Absolutely.




Who Does NCAI Represent?

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

2/17/13



This past Thursday, Jefferson Keel, President of the National Congress of American Indians, delivered the 11^th Annual State of the Indian Nations Address.

Mr. Keel gave a standard political speech. I’m sure it appeased wealthy tribes and mainstreamed Natives. However, I found myself asking what Indian country the NCAI represents, because I hardly recognized the one he described.


Read more at [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]


FWIW, there's been some doubt over the years as to whether Jefferson Keel is actually, um, what he claims to be.


So the writer, who is a science teacher, and a Native American, is speaking out and basically saying that the NCAI as leaders of the nations of Native Americans has lost its vision, has misplaced its priorities, and ignores the needs of those Native Americans who suffer from problems of poverty, substance abuse, lack of economic opportunity and the like?  She says that Native Americans should not follow "the Western Class System" where the rich individuals fail to acknowledge the struggles of their poorer brothers and sisters, but get their heads out of their asses and address the needs of those Native Americans who truly need assistance.  

Hmmm.  Sounds a lot like us (or at least some of us) talking about our Congress.  

Good for her.  I like her style. 

George1963 wrote:
You should have looked harder.


That's what I have you for George.
 

"Redskins" is still about skin color more so than face paint. 

Would you name your team of Ninjas the "Yellowskins"?  There are better choices I submit. 

Whatever the word was in the beginning, may have been, turned into, or whatever, in 2013 it is not complimentary.  Even that anthropologist who did that exhaustive historical analysis of the word, said in his concluding remarks that "the decent of this word into obloquy (harsh criticism) is a phenomenon of more recent times."  We both can accept that.  The word has a different meaning today to a lot of people than it did a century or more ago when the fledgling US government was dealing with the Indians and establishing treaties and reservations. 

In today's modern world, the time of the word "redskin" has passed.  That's my bottom line.  But then again ever since I can remember I've always wanted to be on the right side of history when it comes to issues involving race relations and discrimination.  I accept the fact that that means I might be out front on a postion that does not gain greater widespread acceptance until later on.  

Like this one for instance.  

guppy wrote:

Admin wrote:

guppy wrote:To all the good folks on here who have weighed in, some very strongly, on the discussion I started regarding the word "Redskins".  I know I stirred up hornets nest, and it looks like I'm all alone in my opinion (maybe Sheila is leaning ever so slightly to my point of view) that changing "Redskins" is an idea whose time has come.  But that's perfectly OK with me.  Like I said, I may be alone here, but I stand with those multitudes out there who say its time for a change.  I do so proudly.  I have no hesitation or regret taking what is on this board at least, an unpopular stance.  Anyway, just want to thank you all for the lively discussion.  Its been fun.  I respect you all.....just not your opinions.  LOL.  

Now back to football, yes? 

Respectfully yours in the First Amendment,

Gup.


 PS.  One final thing for food for thought.  May I suggest you listen to the disucssion on this subject from Stephen A. Smith and Skip Bayless.  Pretty interesting perspective from two in the daily national sports media.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

 I'd have a MUCH more different point of view if  leaders of the American Indian Tribes were speaking out against it. Maybe they are. But, to my knowledge, I haven't heard much complaint from them. I'd think the very people who should & would be offended the most, should be the ones listened to  and given the most credibility.  I mean it ain't like the US cavalry will ride out against them if they speak up now. Again... I thank you for the debate, though we are obviously on different sides of the fence on it..


Did you watch Stephen A. and Bayless on First Take?

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]


If you didn't, take a few minutes to watch it.  It was a good discussion.  They both feel pretty strongly about it, and talked about the Indians speaking up about it.  Also, the NFL is meeting with the Indians about it.  No, not the Cleveland Indians.  lol.   Skip Bayless said he doesn't even like to say the word.  S.I.'s Peter King will no longer use the word when covering the team.  I'm just mentioning what some others have said to prove I'm not some crazy person alone on an island on this.


The Oneida Tribe in upstate New York apparently is strongly against it, calling the name "a racial slur".  Their words, not mine. 

Also, the only member of Congress who is an actual tribal enrolled Native American, has gone on record as saying the name needs to be changed.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]


Again, we're not talking here about jobs and the economy.  Only a sports team's name.  But do we really need to keep a name that's only about the skin color of a race?  Skin color?  I mean, can't we do better than that?  Like picking a name that has something to do with the Indians' proud history, rather than their physical appearance?  How about Hawkeyes or something like that? 

My tribe is called the "Fighting Irish".  The difference between that and Redskins is, first of all, the Irish gave that name to ourselves, we weren't given that label by someone else.  Secondly, we are damn freakin proud of our "fighting" heritage.  We embrace it.  We consider it a badge of honor.  Its all about our toughness.   "You mess with us, we'll fight you." etc.  But what we would not like at all is being called the  "Red Headed, Freckle Faced, Pasty Whiteskins Who Get Sunburned Easily".  LOL.   

guppy wrote:

Admin wrote:

guppy wrote:To all the good folks on here who have weighed in, some very strongly, on the discussion I started regarding the word "Redskins".  I know I stirred up hornets nest, and it looks like I'm all alone in my opinion (maybe Sheila is leaning ever so slightly to my point of view) that changing "Redskins" is an idea whose time has come.  But that's perfectly OK with me.  Like I said, I may be alone here, but I stand with those multitudes out there who say its time for a change.  I do so proudly.  I have no hesitation or regret taking what is on this board at least, an unpopular stance.  Anyway, just want to thank you all for the lively discussion.  Its been fun.  I respect you all.....just not your opinions.  LOL.  

Now back to football, yes? 

Respectfully yours in the First Amendment,

Gup.


 PS.  One final thing for food for thought.  May I suggest you listen to the disucssion on this subject from Stephen A. Smith and Skip Bayless.  Pretty interesting perspective from two in the daily national sports media.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

 I'd have a MUCH more different point of view if  leaders of the American Indian Tribes were speaking out against it. Maybe they are. But, to my knowledge, I haven't heard much complaint from them. I'd think the very people who should & would be offended the most, should be the ones listened to  and given the most credibility.  I mean it ain't like the US cavalry will ride out against them if they speak up now. Again... I thank you for the debate, though we are obviously on different sides of the fence on it..


Did you watch Stephen A. and Bayless on First Take?

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]


If you didn't, take a few minutes to watch it.  It was a good discussion.  They both feel pretty strongly about it, and talked about the Indians speaking up about it.  Also, the NFL is meeting with the Indians about it.  No, not the Cleveland Indians.  lol.   Skip Bayless said he doesn't even like to say the word.  S.I.'s Peter King will no longer use the word when covering the team.  I'm just mentioning what some others have said to prove I'm not some crazy person alone on an island on this.


The Oneida Tribe in upstate New York apparently is strongly against it, calling the name "a racial slur".  Their words, not mine. 

Also, the only member of Congress who is an actual tribal enrolled Native American, has gone on record as saying the name needs to be changed.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]


Again, we're not talking here about jobs and the economy.  Only a sports team's name.  But do we really need to keep a name that's only about the skin color of a race?  Skin color?  I mean, can't we do better than that?  Like picking a name that has something to do with the Indians' proud history, rather than their physical appearance?  How about Hawkeyes or something like that? 

My tribe is called the "Fighting Irish".  The difference between that and Redskins is, first of all, the Irish gave that name to ourselves, we weren't given that label by someone else.  Secondly, we are damn freakin proud of our "fighting" heritage.  We embrace it.  We consider it a badge of honor.  Its all about our toughness.   "You mess with us, we'll fight you." etc.  But what we would not like at all is being called the  "Red Headed, Freckle Faced, Pasty Whiteskins Who Get Sunburned Easily".  LOL.   

Admin wrote:
   Wanted to deal with the last paragraph on its own..... What if agroup of well meaning people decide the term "Fighting Irish" was offensive and started speaking out against it? What if a couple Irish people, not aligned to the majority of YOU... lent their support to that cause? And what if some journalist... in order to garner attention to himself..... spoke out on national TV , telling everyone that YOUR fighting irish theme is offensive and needs changed? What if everything in life was so dam litteral that you couldn't say a thing without offending someone??..... wait... we're dam close to that now. Freedom of speech is a cornerstone of our freedom... these kinds of issues CAUSE those freedoms to be chipped away at.        PS: I AM a redheaded, freckle faced pasty white skin who gets sunburned easily... so easily... I wear a shirt outside in a full moon!  & I ain't offended by what you wrote.


Well, if those fictional people who you hypothesize find the term "Fighting Irish" offensive, then, by definition, they are not "well meaning". LOL. 

In addition, the fictional journalist you hypothesize who goes on national TV and says "Fighting Irish"  is offensive, is already, by your own description, exposed for his unpure motivation.  He is doing it "to garner attention to himself."  So the fact that he is a fraud from the get go will be apparent to everyone.... including the people who allowed him to go on national TV in the first place, who now realize the mistake they made by giving national TV time to a nutjob.  LOL. 

So a line has to be drawn somewhere between what is reasonable, and what is unreasonable.  Dropping "Redskins" is not a threat to anyone's Freedom of Speech imo.  Also, it is not the start of taking us down a dangerous road to a slippery slope to where we can't say anything without offending someone.  I'm just not worried that will happen.  Changing "redskins" is a reasonable response to a legitimate issue for many who call themselves Native Americans.  The issue should be discussed on its own merits.  When the next issue comes along, that will be discussed on its own merits.   There is no danger that this issue is the start of chipping away at our freedoms, including Freedom of Speech, or that we are now consumed by such overwhelming worry that anything we say will be found to be offensive by somebody.  I just don't see that the cornerstones of our freedoms are under threat due to how we respond to this issue.  I think our freedoms rest on such solid bedrock that they cannot be chipped away at by something like this.     

Admin wrote:
 WELL Gup... you can have your sources.... Until Billy-jo-bob, Ralph and eleven toes Tommy say the think it's a good idea... I'm stayin pat.
Ya know... it is easy to write one of them big ole articles with sources.... but it's dam tuff to survive the lunch room of blue collar, anywhere if ya ain't good a good game! LOL. My main point in all this.... with all the random acts of voilence, all the bullying, and other social disfunction in America... why the hell did this particular subject get so much attention. The bottom line of it is this... a WORD has a bunch of folks all pissed off... a word?? My grandfather once said. " How can you get all upset when a jackass calls you a name? One MUST consider the source! Be a better person and turn away from the pettiness!Life is too short to be bothered by jackasses".


Admin, I agree, it is just a word.  So is the  "N word".  Thats just a word too.  But imo "redskins" is a word that, despite what it may have been in the past, has also come to be indicative of an attitude, because its a word that not only defines the people who it describes and refers to, but it also defines the rest of us people in how we choose to deal with those people.  Its kind of a defining word imo.  Defining to them.  Defining to us in how we relate to them.  I think thats why its gotten all the attention.

I also think your grandfather is wise man.  I hope he's still around.
     

guppy wrote:

Admin wrote:
 WELL Gup... you can have your sources.... Until Billy-jo-bob, Ralph and eleven toes Tommy say the think it's a good idea... I'm stayin pat.
Ya know... it is easy to write one of them big ole articles with sources.... but it's dam tuff to survive the lunch room of blue collar, anywhere if ya ain't good a good game! LOL. My main point in all this.... with all the random acts of voilence, all the bullying, and other social disfunction in America... why the hell did this particular subject get so much attention. The bottom line of it is this... a WORD has a bunch of folks all pissed off... a word?? My grandfather once said. " How can you get all upset when a jackass calls you a name? One MUST consider the source! Be a better person and turn away from the pettiness!Life is too short to be bothered by jackasses".


Admin, I agree, it is just a word.  So is the  "N word".  Thats just a word too.  But imo "redskins" is a word that, despite what it may have been in the past, has also come to be indicative of an attitude, because its a word that not only defines the people who it describes and refers to, but it also defines the rest of us people in how we choose to deal with those people.  Its kind of a defining word imo.  Defining to them.  Defining to us in how we relate to them.  I think thats why its gotten all the attention.

I also think your grandfather is wise man.  I hope he's still around.
     

Admin wrote:
 I'll sum up my stance a bit here: ANY offensive word is ONLY offensive if WE give it the power to be so.... otherwise it is just a word. History of words do not define what they are today. I simply feel a big deal is being made out of very little.  I also believe that the word "redskins" WAS, meaning in the PAST, an word that had negative connotations. I do not feel it is so as much today. In fact, I can think of a lot more offensive words thrown around daily. For example.... the African Americans rightfully dislike the "N" word, yet vast numbers of their youth use it daily. I'd think they would NOt want the term to be used at all..... using logic expressed by you and others in regards to the Redskin theory. I ask also... should we ban the name of a certain peanut??? I do like redskin peanuts... am I to boycott them until we have a different term for them?It opens up such a broad field of change when one applies the logic associated here. The Name of the state of Oklahoma... should it go also? It is from the native  [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] words okla and humma, meaning "red people". Is it next?


As to the first sentence highlighted in red, it is actually the opposite of what you say.  As George pointed out when he posted the incredibly exhaustive and highly researched article by an anthropologist on this subject, the history of the term "redskins" was not initially used with much negative connotations.  As the anthropologist pointed out at the conclusion of his treatise, the negative connotations to the name "redskins" is "a phenomenon of more recent times."  Wikepedia says the same thing.   

As to the second sentence, well, all I can say is, when we start comparing peanuts to a race of people, I don't think we are advancing the discussion very much.  You need not boycott redskin peanuts because to date, not a single soul anywhere has said a single word of criticism to that peanut's name.  Not only that, but I can just about guarantee you there never will be a single critical word of that peanut's name voiced in the future either. 

As to the third sentence that "when one applies the logic associated here", you say it "opens up such a broad field of change", I already gave my take on that previously.  Quite simply, it does not.  It opens up nothing.  This issue of the word "redskins" is its own issue.  It stands alone.  Independent.  By itself.  Self-contained.  Unconnected to some other social catastrophe you are envisioning.  Don't worry so much about "What's next?"  Nothing's next.  There is no connection between changing "redskins", and the start of the ruination of this country's cherished traditions, which is what you seem to be suggesting.  Your main objection is, you don't want this to "open the door" to "such a broad field of change", which, I take it, would be some kind of incredibly horrible result that's going to bring society as we know it to the edge of destruction.  My response is pretty simple.  Don't worry.   Relax.  It aint gonna happen. 


Some ideas take awhile before they get changed.  We used to think it was a good idea to allow smoking on airplane flights. 

Used to.

George1963 wrote:
Do you think the President should do something about it Gup? It's not part of his job to tell private citizens how to run their businesses, and he doesn't really have the authority, but he's shown in the past that that doesn't matter to him so do you think he should apply pressure for a name change? Threaten to take away their anti-trust exemption? Their trademarks? Not just Snyder, but all of them. We've been saying Snyder ,Snyder, Snyder but stricktly speaking the name doesn't belong to him, it belongs to all of them.
Maybe he could threaten to audit the whole lot of them.
It would be "The right thing to do", don't you think?


This is now about the President George?  Didn't know we made that switch to a whole new and different can of worms.  Well, what I will say is, you answered your own question.  You just said, "he (the President) doesn't really have the authority."  Then you followed that by talking about him "applying pressure" and "threatening" to take away things from private businesses.  The obvious question is, How can he threaten to take away things when he has no authority?  Its a non-sequitur.  Also, I haven't heard any threats coming out of the White House.  But then again, I don't pay as much attention to the news as I should because I'm always reading reading about or watching sports.  

I will say as an aside, the job of a President is to lead.  Part of leading is to speak up and articulate viewpoints, goals, priorities and directions.  In other words, lead.  Whether one agrees with what is being articulated by the particular occupant of the Oval Office or not is not the point.  No president I remember always keeps his mouth shut, or only speaks about things in which he can, through the authority of his office, directly effect change.  Most -- correction "all"  --  presidents speak up on a plethora of topics where they have "no authority".  If they didn't, we'd criicize them for that.  

But I'm curious.  You sound like you're mad or something.  And I'm a little taken aback by the hostile tone I detect from you.  Its taken me by surprise.  Are you mad at me just because on this issue I am exercising my free will to side with the likes of sports commentators such as Bob Costas, Peter King, Stephen A. Smith and Skip Bayless?  Or are you mad at me just because I'm in the same camp on this issue as our President, a man whose guts you despise?

George1963 wrote:
Good stuff.


Thank you.

George1963 wrote:*For what it's worth, if somebody said they wanted to get rid of it because it's offensive  in general, that's fine. It's just when they decide what's hurtful to the supposed injured group that I have an issue.


Here, its both.  Its offensive in general.  And   The injured group (enough of them) is offended by it.   Simply the way I see it.   And I'm far from alone. 

What's the percentage breakdown of African-Americans between those who were offended by Limbaugh's remarks about McNabb, and those who weren't offended and say he had a point when he said McNabb was overrated because the media wanted to see a black QB succeed?  He loves to rant against the media.  But that's his thing.  Thats where he makes his bread and butter, so I take that for what it is - Rush being Rush.    I don't know the breakdown of opinion in the black community, but it would be interesting to find out.   Here's the point.  Even if I didn't know how the "supposed injured group", the black community (or a majority of it)  felt in general about Limbaugh's remarks, I would still be able to have a pretty good understanding as to whether his  remarks were offensive or not.  Its kind of like pornography.  You can't precisely define it.  But you know it when you see it.  

As to "Crusaders"?  Another time George.  Too much energy spent on this stuff is making my head hurt.

George1963 wrote:
He loves to rant against the media.  But that's his thing.


He wasn't being racist, he was calling them racist.


Agree.