Put me in the camp that isn't a fan of the name. I'll admit that I never had a problem with it until all the fuss came about. Maybe I just never thought about it(NFL isn't my thing). I just see where native tribes are coming from I guess. If the name offends that many people, then the Redskins should seriously consider a change

Put me in the camp that isn't a fan of the name. I'll admit that I never had a problem with it until all the fuss came about.

 

That's how all negative names and stereotypes eventually die away. When everyone says it, it isn't a big deal. My father, born in 1956, remembers well how African-Americans were referred to as "n-----" in common parlance of his parents/aunts/uncles. As he went to school, the term gradually went away, no doubt influenced by the Civil Rights Movement. Fifty years later, I'm uncomfortable writing the dashes in my previous sentence.

 

The same can be said for Redskins. Most people didn't have a problem until the fuss came about. Now we are starting to at least consider the negative connotations of the term. Some people are all against it and some all for it, with many in between. Over time, that opinion will change, in part because Native Americans are exercising a voice they've so rarely had in the American public square.

I don't believe there is anyone in this thread who has lamented "political correctness" who would refer to a minority or minority group in racially disparaging terms. Is that because they cower to the "PC crowd"? No. It's almost certainly because everyone here is a decent person who doesn't believe such terms and prejudices belong in a civilized society. I think the same standards of decency should apply to all minorities, including Native groups. To claim from this that people are "offended by everything" or that the San Francisco Giants or Cincinnati Reds are somehow equally offensive names is so preposterous it's hardly worth the keystrokes to type out.

While I agree with most of what you say, it is an absolute fact that people look to be offended these days. The whole Redskins thing makes sense if Native Americans are offended by the term, which it appears some are. If the name gets changed, fine by me. If there are more Native Americans that have no problem with it and don't want it changed, fine by me. But it gets tiresome listening to people that have no dog in the fight and let's face it, there are always plenty of people wanting to tell others how to think, as in their way. I mean, do we really need Phil Simms pretending to be some kind of moral compass for everyone by calling them the Washington team instead of Redskins because it offends a certain group of people and he has sympathy for them? If he's going to do his job in that manner, he's soon going to have to look elsewhere for employment because anymore everyone gets offended easily.

As expected, South Park is all over the Redskins controversy in the way that only they can. No matter how you feel about the issue, you have to give to them. I love South Park.

 

[video=youtube_share;rnK-jYzaWtw]

If Roger and the NFL truly mean what they say about their personal conduct policy (i.e.; domestic violence, drug / alcohol issues) and they can dismantle a players career, then why do they not possess a similar leverage over a privately held team ? I would feel safe saying that the NFL has a majority of non-caucasian players, are not the non-caucasian players on the Washington Redskins offended by the slur ?

More local...

 

Before Washington Redskins controversy, Louisville had Seneca | WHAS11.com Louisville

 

I guess my Alma mater is as evil as the pros.

 

But Lonesome still looks good....

If Roger and the NFL truly mean what they say about their personal conduct policy (i.e.; domestic violence, drug / alcohol issues) and they can dismantle a players career, then why do they not possess a similar leverage over a privately held team ? I would feel safe saying that the NFL has a majority of non-caucasian players, are not the non-caucasian players on the Washington Redskins offended by the slur ?

 

Slur? It was term created by the native Americans themselves.

Slur? It was term created by the native Americans themselves.

 

He has Indian blood in him so I guess it's a slur for him. :idunno:

He has Indian blood in him so I guess it's a slur for him. :idunno:

 

Historically, it was not. Since it was term brought into being by by the leaders of the tribal nations.

 

Here is a must read on the subject:

 

http://anthropology.si.edu/goddard/redskin.pdf

 

The word redskin reflects a genuine

Native American idiom that was used

in several languages, where it grew

out of an earlier established and more

widespread use of “red” and “white”

as racial labels. This terminology was

developed by Native Americans to

label categories of the new ethnic and

political reality they confronted with

the coming of the Europeans.

 

The sudden emergence of the English

word redskin in print during the

treaty negotiations of 1815 can plausibly

be seen as directly stimulated by

the circumstance of those events. The

treaties were greatly empowering for

the Indians, who ceded nothing and

were loaded with gifts in exchange for

accepting a mutual peace.

 

...

 

At the same time, the views of the

officials and the local whites towards

Indians were forced to evolve. The

oratorical powers and political skills of

the leading chiefs demanded and

received respect. Local newspapers

that as recently as the month before

were denouncing scalpings now were

publishing the texts of Indian speeches

both as significant news events

and as admirable intellectual achievements.

In these changed circumstances

the interpreters began to use

the literal translation redskins for

Native American expressions they

might earlier have rendered Indians or

red men, and the newspapers fixed in

print speeches that displayed the new

usage in a confident and appealing

voice.

Another good read:

 

Vanishing Memories: Redskins and War Paint

 

It is quite unfortunate that so many people have accepted the concocted story that the word "redskin" comes from the white man paying bounties for Indian scalps. Some versions of this hoax are ridiculous, such as one published in The Virginian-Pilot (N.C. school districts rethinking use of Indian mascots, By CATHERINE KOZAK, March 29, 2003), which says

"The word Redskin is considered derogatory. The term comes from centuries ago when a bounty was placed on Indian people. Trappers would bring in Indian scalps along with the skins of animals -- bearskin, deerskin, redskin. For Indians, it is a reminder of their genocide".

It strains credulity that fur traders would be collecting scalps of Indians. Here is another blatantly false version by a Spokane Indian woman, Dr. Charlene Teeters.

"Redskin was the shorthand name for a body part like a scalp or hands, of Native American people who were slaughtered to collect bounty payments. The symbol used to mark the locations where bounty hunters could collect payments was the decapitated head of a Native American, not unlike those symbols often used by sports teams."

The term "redskin" has been in use since at least as early as 1699. The British government did not offer bounties for scalps until more than fifty years later, during the French and Indian War. For our erudition, some soul has created a list of all the known slur words in the English language, so if you want to be safe in your speech and writing, go here. For more information about William Lone Star Dietz including a picture of him in Indian dress, go here.

 

Has this incorrect history been 'officialized' by the web...yes:

 

The Racial Slur Database

 

The term Redskin, came from two places, the skin color, then the cruel torture of skinning Native Americans for a bounty. Since their skin was red they started saying "red skins."

 

So the internet folklore has become peoples reality. Its on the internet - it must be true apparently.

 

As the research paper in th above post shows the term redskin was used to acknowledge its accurate use by the chiefs of the tribes in their speeches.

You look like a paleface to me.

Lol

While it may be true that the origin of the word "Redskin" may be benign, there is no denying that over the years, it began to be used in a negative fashion. Many words and symbols that are now considered patently offensive and slurs started out benign in nature. Whatever the origins, "Redskin" has become an unusable word in daily conversation, and while some or even many Native Americans aren't offended by the term, it certainly offends enough, that it would never be used to address a Native Americans or a group of people. Imagine the angry looks or stares a speaker would get if the term was ever used in a speech or public address? A slur is a slur, regardless of the context it is used, and no other slur that is recognized in todays culture would be so readily defended by the reasoning that "it's meant as an honor or tribute". This issue isn't about political correctness....it's more about manners and just doing the right thing. Why are we looking to defend a term that so clearly does offend a large group of people??

Article pointing to the 2005 paper posted above:

 

Redskins: The debate over the Washington football team's name incorrectly invokes history.

 

In 2005, the Indian language scholar Ives Goddard of the Smithsonian Institution published a remarkable and consequential study of redskin's early history. His findings shifted the dates for the word's first appearance in print by more than a century and shed an awkward light on the contemporary debate. Goddard found, in summary, that "the actual origin of the word is entirely benign."

 

 

 

Redskin, he learned, had not emerged first in English or any European language. The English term, in fact, derived from Native American phrases involving the color red in combination with terms for flesh, skin, and man. These phrases were part of a racial vocabulary that Indians often used to designate themselves in opposition to others whom they (like the Europeans) called black, white, and so on.

 

Lots of terms that were not so controversial decades or centuries ago now are. Just because a Redskin coined the term 200 years ago may not make it "okay" today.

While it may be true that the origin of the word "Redskin" may be benign, there is no denying that over the years, it began to be used in a negative fashion. Many words and symbols that are now considered patently offensive and slurs started out benign in nature. Whatever the origins, "Redskin" has become an unusable word in daily conversation, and while some or even many Native Americans aren't offended by the term, it certainly offends enough, that it would never be used to address a Native Americans or a group of people. Imagine the angry looks or stares a speaker would get if the term was ever used in a speech or public address? A slur is a slur, regardless of the context it is used, and no other slur that is recognized in todays culture would be so readily defended by the reasoning that "it's meant as an honor or tribute". This issue isn't about political correctness....it's more about manners and just doing the right thing. Why are we looking to defend a term that so clearly does offend a large group of people??

 

 

That scenario has Joe Biden written all over it!