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??

 

Where has been it used as a slur in common usage? When?

Where has been it used as a slur in common usage? When?

Redskin - This racial slur brought to you by Hollywood.

Guys... this is not that difficult.

 

Long list of tribes and associations of Native Americans who find it to be a slur. They don't like it.

 

Paging through the etymology section of the OED and playing at sophistry is a waste of energy. If so many Native Americans take umbrage with the term, why are so many white people investing this much effort into keeping it? Why is it so important to you to make sure the team keeps a nickname that a huge number of Native Americans seem to consider a racial slur? What's your investment?

Guys... this is not that difficult.

 

Long list of tribes and associations of Native Americans who find it to be a slur. They don't like it.

 

Paging through the etymology section of the OED and playing at sophistry is a waste of energy. If so many Native Americans take umbrage with the term, why are so many white people investing this much effort into keeping it? Why is it so important to you to make sure the team keeps a nickname that a huge number of Native Americans seem to consider a racial slur? What's your investment?

As I've said numerous times, if Native Americans are offended, then change it. It won't matter one way or another if they keep it or change it, won't affect my life. It's not the Native Americans I have issue with on this, it's the non-Native Americans that think they speak for the Native Americans that bug me. See ESPN, Phil Simms, Facebook, etc....

Where has been it used as a slur in common usage? When?

 

It was used fairly regularly in film and Hollywood, in movies with the traditional depiction of Native Americans as savages. Dictionaries have been defining the term as offensive since the late 60's. And again, it's certainly universally recognized as enough of an offensive term that no one would ever dream of using in a roomful of Native Americans, or in any public setting.

 

I think what's most frustrating about the whole argument, is that the people who are affected most by the term, Native Americans, are the ones being told by defenders of the term, not to worry about it, and seem to have the smallest voice in the matter. Every other racial group gets to say what is offensive to them without being labeled as being too sensitive. That's how those racial slurs slowly began to be eliminated from popular use. Those groups fought back, and let it be know how they felt about the words, and eventually they became unacceptable.

 

Again, not all Native Americans are offended by the word, or even care about the issue. But there's no denying that quite a few do. Enough that it's time to stop defending the term, and recognize and listen to their voice.

It was used fairly regularly in film and Hollywood, in movies with the traditional depiction of Native Americans as savages. Dictionaries have been defining the term as offensive since the late 60's. And again, it's certainly universally recognized as enough of an offensive term that no one would ever dream of using in a roomful of Native Americans, or in any public setting.

 

I think what's most frustrating about the whole argument, is that the people who are affected most by the term, Native Americans, are the ones being told by defenders of the term, not to worry about it, and seem to have the smallest voice in the matter. Every other racial group gets to say what is offensive to them without being labeled as being too sensitive. That's how those racial slurs slowly began to be eliminated from popular use. Those groups fought back, and let it be know how they felt about the words, and eventually they became unacceptable.

 

Again, not all Native Americans are offended by the word, or even care about the issue. But there's no denying that quite a few do. Enough that it's time to stop defending the term, and recognize and listen to their voice.

So, if I read this correctly, you think that the Native Americans are being told not to be overly sensitive and because of that, they are failing to voice their opinions? Is that your position?

It was used fairly regularly in film and Hollywood, in movies with the traditional depiction of Native Americans as savages. Dictionaries have been defining the term as offensive since the late 60's. And again, it's certainly universally recognized as enough of an offensive term that no one would ever dream of using in a roomful of Native Americans, or in any public setting.

Agreed, it seems to me that Hollywood is where the term started to be viewed widely as a slur.

 

Again, not all Native Americans are offended by the word, or even care about the issue. But there's no denying that quite a few do. Enough that it's time to stop defending the term, and recognize and listen to their voice.

This is where I think the problem is, as long as there are enough Native Americans that aren't offended by it, many people are just going to shrug it off. If Native Americans want it changed and want the name to be taken as a slur by everyone, then all Native Americans need to get on board.

^ Now that's just being ridiculous. All of them need to get on board?

 

Public statements from all sorts of native american tribes out there asking for it be changed.

 

So the four guys that Dan Snyder trotted out for a commercial are enough to weigh against that?

So, if I read this correctly, you think that the Native Americans are being told not to be overly sensitive and because of that, they are failing to voice their opinions? Is that your position?

 

Not exactly. Let me try to say it another way. The term "redskin" has the most affect on (and really only affects) Native Americans. Thus, Native Americans are really the only stakeholders in the debate as to whether the term is offensive or not. But when they voice their opinion as to how this term is offensive, they are told by other Non Native Americans, (those who have no stake in the matter), not to be offended, and that they are being overly sensitive. Native Americans are certainly voicing their opinion, and enough have, that their really shouldn't be any question the the name should be done away with.

 

I never meant to imply Native Americans are not voicing their opinion on the matter. They certainly have. They are just being told that their opinion doesn't matter.

^ Now that's just being ridiculous. All of them need to get on board?

 

Public statements from all sorts of native american tribes out there asking for it be changed.

 

So the four guys that Dan Snyder trotted out for a commercial are enough to weigh against that?

Now, now....four is ridiculous. I think you realize I'm saying vast majority, I'm not sure they've reached that yet or not. If there is a large population that isn't offended or doesn't care, Dan Snyder will consider that enough opposition and that's a problem.

Now, now....four is ridiculous. I think you realize I'm saying vast majority, I'm not sure they've reached that yet or not. If there is a large population that isn't offended or doesn't care, Dan Snyder will consider that enough opposition and that's a problem.

 

I don't think Dan Snyder cares. That's the problem.

So why can't the NFL force Dan Snyder to change the name? That's probably been discussed here but let's talk about it again. If the NBA can force a team owner to sell because of racist comments, why can't the NFL force changes on Washington? MLB forced Marge Schott out for similar racial tendencies. What is different about the NFL?

Guys... this is not that difficult.

 

Long list of tribes and associations of Native Americans who find it to be a slur. They don't like it.

 

Paging through the etymology section of the OED and playing at sophistry is a waste of energy. If so many Native Americans take umbrage with the term, why are so many white people investing this much effort into keeping it? Why is it so important to you to make sure the team keeps a nickname that a huge number of Native Americans seem to consider a racial slur? What's your investment?

 

You have to ask - were we being hateful and derogatory the 4 years we were the Redskins? Can I not wear my school letterman jacket that has Redskins across its back in public ever again with being accused of being a hateful racist. Did they err in the 1960s when the Jefferson County school system specifically received from approval from the Seneca tribe for the nickname?

 

There is some level of investment because if you were or are a Redskin it is part you. I know a former Redskinette. She feels very abused by the whole situation as it has played out. And it has played out on internet folklore that is incorrect and a lie.

 

I bet the guy on your avitar would not like it if history changed the name of Flaget Warriors and wipe it from the history books.

 

But finally, the word was created by Chiefs of tribes of native Americans. It is their word, in their languange, without filtering or interpretation. No Ears, Black Thunder others - used the term to describe the people they representative in negotiations with the President of the United States. Where they wrong? Is this not the proper way the term is used when used for team names? Why do we have scrub history of honor and replace it with an incorrect and lie-filled story of dishonor?

 

When asked about the term Redskin history should say it come to popularity in the early 1800s when the Chiefs of the tribes sat down the the President of the United and successfully negotiated with the most powerful man in the world and won the negotiation on behalf their people - who they referred as the redskins. We shouldn't say - it was some term used by Hollywood because they got tired of using Injun or Indian.

 

It would seem history would have reason to keep the term from being mischaracterized. Only in its mischaracterized definition does it require scrubbing.

Now, now....four is ridiculous. I think you realize I'm saying vast majority, I'm not sure they've reached that yet or not. If there is a large population that isn't offended or doesn't care, Dan Snyder will consider that enough opposition and that's a problem.

 

I can't speak to the numbers that want to see it gone, or are indifferent. As has been mentioned, there have been plenty of groups, individuals and tribes that HAVE spoken up and voiced their support of getting rid of the name. At what point do we just recognize there are simply enough that are offended that it is an issue?? As society and language have evolved, I don't remember any other formerly commonly used terms, like Oriental, Colored, etc, needing a specific tipping point to become universally recognized as offensive, and certainly not to be used as a nickname for a public sports team.

I don't think Dan Snyder cares. That's the problem.

I don't doubt that.