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.

 

Again, how, why or who created it doesn't matter. Words change in meaning and affect over time, and despite it's benign (according to some....and let's face it we really don't know for sure, it's all subject to interpretation) beginnings, eventually it grew and has evolved to what it is today. An unusable word except when referring to the football team based in Washington DC. Because the word was ok and acceptable 200 years ago, doesn't mean it still is. If you can't use the word when addressing a roomful of Native Americans, you probably shouldn't name your football team that word.

Edited October 3, 201412 yr by rjs4470

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.

 

Shifting demographics and then Father Time will ultimately wipe the Flaget Warriors from history without any help from me or the rest of the PC Police. And what Howard Schnellenberger thinks of the name does not affect me in any way. I admire him for a lot of reasons but what he may or may not think about that nickname isn't one of them. (I also don't care about Warriors or Chiefs or anything else in that vein; I'm concerned specifically about this one because so many other people seem to be.)

 

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.

 

Why is this historical analysis of this term so important? It couldn't matter any less. We're talking about now. There are statements from any number of tribes saying that they don't like the term and want to change it. We all suffer from the shifting sands of time. What was acceptable or practiced then may not be acceptable now; people tell me that all the time.

 

We have a large number of Native Americans who say the term is a slur. We then have a dedicated group of white people who say it isn't. So my question then becomes: why should I side with the white people dedicated to preserving what appears to me -- thanks to all the outpouring of opposition from Native American tribes -- to be a racial slur? Etymology? An origin story? Is that really a compelling enough reason?

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.

Well, I keep seeing differing polls and opinions on the subject. I see a poll that say 67% of Native Americans find the name racist, then I see a 2004 poll that says that 90 percent of Native Americans were not offended by the Redskins' name, then I see other differing polls where some Native Americans say it's offensive and other polls where Native Americans claim it isn't again. Then when polling all Americans 71 percent say the name should stay then I see a poll where 59 percent see why 'Redskins' is offensive to Native Americans. It's hard to gauge what is fact and what is fiction and what is in between.

Eeh. If it's considered offensive by those it supposedly portrays (American Indians), then just change it and be done. The problem is, it seems to me, that they cry that it IS offensive is being lead by those who have no stake in the matter, they are just telling everyone we all SHOULD be offended and outraged.

 

In opposition to what Getslow has stated, I have heard/read where the vast majority of Indians polled either aren't bothered by it or really have no opinion either way on the matter.

Well, I keep seeing differing polls and opinions on the subject. I see a poll that say 67% of Native Americans find the name racist, then I see a 2004 poll that says that 90 percent of Native Americans were not offended by the Redskins' name, then I see other differing polls where some Native Americans say it's offensive and other polls where Native Americans claim it isn't again. Then when polling all Americans 71 percent say the name should stay then I see a poll where 59 percent see why 'Redskins' is offensive to Native Americans. It's hard to gauge what is fact and what is fiction and what is in between.

 

The numbers are all over the place, and from what I've seen, the polls haven't exactly been scientific. Again though, I point to the fact the I don't remember polls being taken prior to other terms that have been recently been deemed as offensive as they have slowly disappeared from common usage. No polls were conducted, people just realized they shouldn't be using the terms, and they've gone away. With so many tribes and leaders coming out against the nickname, is a poll really necessary? What percentage of the 5-6 million Native Americans is required to make the term officially offensive??

The numbers are all over the place, and from what I've seen, the polls haven't exactly been scientific. Again though, I point to the fact the I don't remember polls being taken prior to other terms that have been recently been deemed as offensive as they have slowly disappeared from common usage. No polls were conducted, people just realized they shouldn't be using the terms, and they've gone away. With so many tribes and leaders coming out against the nickname, is a poll really necessary? What percentage of the 5-6 million Native Americans is required to make the term officially offensive??

Don't know, don't know for sure that many are outraged or think it's offensive and they're the only opinions that should matter. Again, change it if it's offensive to them.

Don't know, don't know for sure that many are outraged or think it's offensive and they're the only opinions that should matter. Again, change it if it's offensive to them.

 

:thumb:

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.

Just curious, when exactly and why did Oriental become offensive? Will people be demanding the Oriental Wok change their name? I'm not being a jerk here, I'm really curious.

Just curious, when exactly and why did Oriental become offensive? Will people be demanding the Oriental Wok change their name? I'm not being a jerk here, I'm really curious.

 

I don't know. I wasn't aware it was an issue until Biden got beat up for it a few weeks ago. Again, I can see it, and I haven't used the term myself in a long time. But I had no clue folks viewed it as offensive.

I don't know. I wasn't aware it was an issue until Biden got beat up for it a few weeks ago. Again, I can see it, and I haven't used the term myself in a long time. But I had no clue folks viewed it as offensive.

See, this is where I wonder if people from that region are the ones offended, or if it's those that claim to know whats correct for everyone.

See, this is where I wonder if people from that region are the ones offended, or if it's those that claim to know whats correct for everyone.

 

That I can't answer. Being a Native American, I'm a little more in touch with the issue this thread is about.

Just curious, when exactly and why did Oriental become offensive? Will people be demanding the Oriental Wok change their name? I'm not being a jerk here, I'm really curious.

You're such a jerk.:banana:

I don't know. I wasn't aware it was an issue until Biden got beat up for it a few weeks ago. Again, I can see it, and I haven't used the term myself in a long time. But I had no clue folks viewed it as offensive.

Me either. I just liked beating up on that moron Biden.

And for the record, I turkey hunted a few years back on the Rosebud reservation in S.Dakota and you had to have a tribal guide when we went. He casually referred to himself and his people as redskins and indians, FWIW.

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.

The difference is that one name was always meant to degrade one race. The other name was meant to honor the positive values of one race. A team is not going to give themselves a nickname that is a negative, only later on did people start taking offense to the name claiming it to be a slur....they are choosing to be offended.