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.

 

I don't know that the term "redskin" honors any particularly valuable part of Native American culture. It's simply a way to describe a racial difference, which eventually came to be used in a negative way. People "chose" to be offended, because some "chose" to use the term in a derogatory manner. It was and has been used as a slur, and in depictions of Native Americans being violent savages. That's where the offense came from.

 

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?

 

 

Inaccuracies and lies are just that. Regardless of source or support. The opposition to the term redskin can only be based on lies and inaccuracies or mis-conceptions. Why are the lies repeated and continued? The 'slur' maybe like the term itself - self generated for only the reason to create another racial divide where none existed.

 

If you go here you will find real slurs - and lots of them.

 

The Racial Slur Database

 

 

Maybe some people or media outlets just like drama. Maybe some like pounding the victim message. Hard to tell. And maybe some do find the term offensive - while some and many do not - but its the media hyping this far more than the actual tribal nations. I would think that terms like Savages and other terms in common use as mascots are far more offensive. But that muddies the popular current waters.

I don't know that the term "redskin" honors any particularly valuable part of Native American culture. It's simply a way to describe a racial difference, which eventually came to be used in a negative way. People "chose" to be offended, because some "chose" to use the term in a derogatory manner. It was and has been used as a slur, and in depictions of Native Americans being violent savages. That's where the offense came from.

Right...they named themselves to depict the negatives.....only derogatory if you want it to be.

Right...they named themselves to depict the negatives.....only derogatory if you want it to be.

 

Again, it's not who named it. I'm sure it was created with all the best intentions. As noble as a beginning it may have had, it came to be used in a not so noble way, and eventually took on a whole new meaning. Since the term was created out of pride and you believe it is such a positive term, I'm guessing you would be comfortable using the term in a casual conversation with a Native American? Words do evolve and take on new meanings over time.

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?

 

Search me.

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.

 

I'm not easily offended. But evidently many are in this case, and I think you're correct.

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.)

 

 

 

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?

 

Correct.

 

But some seem to have a lot invested in the way things were a couple hundred years ago.

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

 

And neither do their fans. Last I checked, Washington is #2 in attendance in the NFL, this season, and top 5 in apparel sales.

 

That's the problem.

 

Snyder would change the name in a heartbeat, if the stadium was empty and nobody was buying Redskin gear.

And neither do their fans. Last I checked, Washington is #2 in attendance in the NFL, this season, and top 5 in apparel sales.

 

That's the problem.

 

Snyder would change the name in a heartbeat, if the stadium was empty and nobody was buying Redskin gear.

No doubt.

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

Didn't know that. I'm assuming you find the term offensive personally. You certainly have more of a right to an opinion on it than I do, so I respect your view.

What about those Native Americans who have come out publicly and said they think it's simply not a big deal and aren't offended in the least?

 

Reminds me of black people who use the n word all the time and aren't offended by it.

Didn't know that. I'm assuming you find the term offensive personally. You certainly have more of a right to an opinion on it than I do, so I respect your view.

 

I was officially in the camp where for years, it didn't bother me. However, as I became older, and more aware of my cultural history, I began to notice things. Over the last 15 or so years, I've come to realize how the portrayal of Native Americans over the years, have led to misunderstanding and misconceptions about what the culture. Really, even now, it's not so much the term that bothers me (although while not being terribly bothered by it, I'm not all comfortable with it), but the portrayals of Native American cultures by drunken sports fans. Headresses, warpaint, spears etc worn by folks who have no clue as to how far off base they are, with little to no understanding of the culture at all is what really bothers me.

I appreciate your input, rjs4470. Thanks.

I find the argument against white people who "have no stake" in the discussion to be interesting. That same logic was used against white people who joined the Civil Rights fight and were promptly labeled as "outside agitators" and "communist sympathizers." Maybe those people are invested in the concept of common decency toward their fellow man?

I find the argument against white people who "have no stake" in the discussion to be interesting. That same logic was used against white people who joined the Civil Rights fight and were promptly labeled as "outside agitators" and "communist sympathizers." Maybe those people are invested in the concept of common decency toward their fellow man?

Maybe true of some and I'm sure it's true that some just think they know what's better for everyone else.