Not Everyone Thankful
by urnext on Nov 26, 2009 10:18 AM PST
Email
Print
For most people, Thanksgiving is about eating more food in one day than most people living in 3rd world countries eat in a month, spending time with family members you wouldn't talk to unless you had no other choice, and watching football for 10 straight hours. But not everyone is thankful. Every year on Thanksgiving a group of people gather on the top of Coles Hill overlooking Plymouth Rock and have a "National Day of Mourning". The group is made up largely of "Native" Americans ("Native" only in the sense that their immigrant ancestors came here before everyone elses immigrant ancestors. Although I don't blame them for not wanting to be called "Indians" simply because Columbus was geographically challenged, and "We got here first" Americans doesn't exactly role off the tongue.). For them, Thanksgiving is a reminder not to accept small poxed laced blankets from strangers.
In addition to the "National Day of Mourning", a battle has also been waged against another Thanksgiving hallmark, football. For 16 years a group of people have been in a legal battle with the Washington Redskins in an effort to have their name changed on the grounds that it's demeaning and offensive (I hear another group is filing a lawsuit against the Redskins, not because they find the name offensive, but because they don't want to be associated with such an awful team). Now I'm not going to tell someone what they should or shouldn't be offended at. Their are lots of things that offend me. People who park in the fire line to quickly run into a store because they're too lazy to walk 50 feet from a parking space, offend me. People who flip me off with their pinkie instead of their middle finger because the middle finger is bad but the pinkie is OK, even though it conveys the same message, offend me (Don't ask. I live in Utah). And people who say, "No offense but..." and then say something offensive, offend me. So I'm in no position to say what someone should or shouldn't be offended at. Although in fairness, "Redskins" has got to be at the top of the list when it comes to offensive mascots.
But it did get me thinking about what other mascots might be offensive. Are their people living in Texas that find the Houston Texans offensive? Do people named Bill find the Billsoffensive? Does the entire country of Canada find the Montreal Canadians hockey team offensive? And most importantly of all, depending on your spiritual beliefs, are their 49ersliving in some other worldly place shaking their fists in anger saying, "Dagnabit! How dare they use me as a mascot!"? So if the NFL decided teams could no longer use people as mascots, what do you think would be the best name to change the 49ers to? Personally, I like the Banana Slugs, but it's already taken.
Post Notes
When I wrote this, I knew it was a subject that would elicit strong feelings. Therefore, I tried to make the tone of the post as lite as possible and with as little opinions as possible. The only opinion's I gave were that:
1) Not having expercianced racial discrimination, I'm in no position to tell people what they should or shouldn't be offended at.
2) If ever there was a mascot that was offensive, it was the "Redskins".
That's why I find it so surprising when I read comments by people who feel others shouldn't be offended by the name "Redskins". How can anyone feel qualified to say someone shouldn't be offended by something? Personally, I have no problem with mascots that use tribal names such as, Seminoles, Utes, or Sioux. But if someone feels offended by that, I'm in no position to tell them they shouldn't feel that way. But when it comes to racial slurs, I really don't know how anyone can defend them. Can everyone say they would be OK with the NY "Darkies"? How about the LA "Wetbacks"? Or the SF "Slanty Eyes"? Redskins is a racial slur, plain and simple. The only reason why people feel otherwise is because we're used to the name. We're so familiar with the name, that it doesn't seem offensive, but it is. And to use the argument, "Well, I wouldn't be offended by the Utah Whities." is just absurd. Whites haven't faced the same level of discrimination, so to act like you can understand what it feels like is so egotistical that it's borderline absurd.
This is a FanPost and does not necessarily reflect the views of Niners Nation's writers or editors. It does reflect the views of this particular fan though, which is as important as the views of Niners Nation's writers or editors.
63 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
man at first I thought this post was going to be about The Sear
"Pat is still just scratching the surface." - Coach Singletary on LB Patrick Willis
Speaking as a "whiteskin" yes Redskins is offensive as far as a name
And speaking as a person that was born and raised near “Redskin country” and lives in VA now where there are a large contingent of those faithful to the Washington Team, I think most find the whole team offensive.
I believe that the team came from Massachusetts where they were initially called the Boston Braves. But for sure their location is not Boston and I don’t think they can be called Brave at this point. This kind of reminds me of a spiel given by a late night host (can’t remember his name) that noted years ago that the Washington Bullets were trying to come up with a less offensive name and offered that changing Washington in the name might be a better option. It is a wholly unsatisfactory name on many levels and a wholly unsatisfactory team on many others.
by ChesapeakeBay9er on Nov 26, 2009 11:01 AM PST reply actions
It is funny that there are names people used to use for those of color or Asians, or Jewish, etc
But those words are not acceptable, at least not anymore. Why then do they allow a football team to use Redskins which is equally offensive and degrading. That and the Native South, Central and Northern American peoples have been here for 12 thousand years. The Chinese and Indian (from India) people could probably trace their life lines back that far but not the Europeans.
I agree with this post and thank urnext for this thoughtful piece.
How about they change their name from the Washington Redskins to the Washington Evil Congressmen?
"Whether you think you can, or you think you can't, either way, YOU'RE RIGHT !"
Might want to change that to "Congresspersons". That probably offends him too!
Now, how do religious people feel about the “Saints?”
As far as we can figure:
1. The Saints franchise began on All Saints Day in 1967.
2. One of the most famous New Orleans jazz tunes is, of course, “When the Saints Go Marching In.”
Other than that, who knows?
P.S. I gaurantee it isn’t based on Bourbon Street!!!!!
Fat, dumb, and happy. Hell, two out of three ain't bad!
I Want To Die In My Sleep Like My Grandpa – Not Screaming and Yelling Like His Passengers
by Just 'Nother Day on Nov 26, 2009 10:53 PM PST up reply actions
Calling white people "white" is offensive too but you dont hear anyone bitching about it. Who cares?
"Bar None!" - William Floyd
You don’t hear anybody bitching about it because we really don’t have the right to bitch about it. And there’s no self-righteous ground to stand on about it. Sometimes you make the bed you sleep in, and sometimes other people made it for you decades before you were either born. It doesn’t always feel so good, but whining about how it’s not fair is missing the point by a pretty ridiculously large margin.
I don't know about that, to the groin.
by howtheyscored on Nov 27, 2009 8:36 PM PST up reply actions
Never said it wasnt fair.
But it is still offensive is what point is. The way I see it most things aren’t fair so who cares?
"Bar None!" - William Floyd
Of course "Redskins" is offensive.
Do you think people would allow a new team to be the “Los Angeles Darkies?” Both Redskins and Darkies are denigrating names for certain minorities.
I’m not one of those overly PC people. In fact, I generally find political correctness to be overbearing and overly sensitive, but this is just a really blatant case.
It’s really a shame that the name is allowed to persist.
I disagree
I think that they should be honored in having their heritage tied in with being warriors. It is the same as having a team mascot as the Spartans, or Warriors, or Trojans or anything of that nature; that is the association. That is where the team name derived from. It wasn’t like the original owners got together and said, “Let’s come up with the most degrading team mascot we could conjur up”. No. If that was the case, don’t you think that they could come up with far worse than “Redskins”? The Redskins have been a part of NFL history for a long time. It would disappoint me and offend me alot to see something with such tradition be removed due to a few people that don’t think it’s right. Not all Native Americans are offended by this. I happen to have a few friends that are Native American and one of them even cheers on the Redskins and sports a Redskins hat from time to time as an honor.
Like you said in the article, different things offend different people. And even if there was a team called the “Whiteskins” if it was tied in to being brave or a warrior it would not offend me one bit.
Some players
put on face paint as if going to war….should that be banned as well? Is that offensive? Or is it someone honoring warriors of times past?
Maybe we should take away the Cowboys too
Cowboys could certainly fall under that category as well. Or maybe we can ban all teams with animal names… maybe certain Lions or Bears would be offended. Maybe I had ancestors who were 49ers and maybe that could offend me that it was insinuating that they were “Gold diggers”… etc, etc, etc. If this happens (The Redskins having to change their name), then it will open up the floodgates and hundreds maybe thousands of teams in a wide variety of sports will have to do the same.
I am 100% against this “movement”.
Uhh..
How am I leading attention away from the topic? Do you know the meaning of strawman? Evidently not.
2/3 of the topic was football realted and how certain mascots are offensive
So if anyone is the strawman here, it’s you with this:
How about the Drew K Strawmen? 2nd Choice: Drew K Slippery Slope Arguments
Strawman – No other team has a lawsuit filed against it claiming the team name and logo is offensive, not the ones you mentioned. You are making up a non-issue with the Cowboy example.
Slippery Slope – changing one team name isn’t going cause a ripple effect changing all other team names.
Both of which are false arguments. A friend with the heritage rebutting the offensive claim, that works.
You're mistaken if you think that it won't cause a more broad issue
And it was all relative….my “Cowboy example” that is….
You are just trying to stir crap up as usual by throwing out some flammatory non-sense in rubutting a valid comment.
So by your take on the situation, I have to be Native American to have any say so? That is absurd and a bit nuts
Did you not read the article?
He used the Texans and Bills in the article as well…
You’re just trying to start stuff for the sake of starting it
The problem with the comparisons to Cowboys, Bills, whatever ...
… is that we don’t live in a world with persistent discrimination against Cowboys. We do with Native Americans.
The issue of “honoring” Native American culture makes some sense, if, say, you’re talking about the Florida State Seminoles, who have worked with the Seminole tribe to select mascots and activities that actually do honor the tribe. To try to claim that the name “Redskins” or the use of, say, Chief Wahoo by the Cleveland Indians baseball team somehow fit under that umbrella is absurd in the extreme.
If you want to honor native Americans, you can’t think of a better way to do it than “Redskins?” THe KC team is orders of magnitude less offensive.
The problem with that argument
is that if you get ris of one, you’ve got to get rid of them all. The people who are complaining are the same ones who complain about all of the relative names. If you do that, then there may be other people that take offense to other team names. Like the Celtics for instance, some people may take offense to that. It is just a whirlwind of chaos that you create of you change that team name. The sam thing happened in the 90’s with the Braves and Chiefs as well.
The whole thing is nuts… I dated a Navajo girl for over a year so I am not nearly a rascist but I do think this argument is a little exagerrated.
This is a vast oversimplification of the way things work. And more than that, wrong.
I’m not going to say more than that because I can’t really hold myself accountable to keep things blog-friendly. This is a very touchy subject.
I don't know about that, to the groin.
by howtheyscored on Nov 27, 2009 8:42 PM PST up reply actions
I don't get how I am simplifying anything
or oversimplifying… or even wrong. It may be a touchy subject for some but I am not the one who posted this. I have a right to an opinion and I have a right to post here if I am keeping things within the guidelines that I agreed to.
You are certainly welcome to your opinion but because I have one that differs from yours does not make it wrong against yours. It makes it an opinion. If have friends who are native american that do not take offense to this, and I was with a native american woman for a long time that is still very active in her tribe and she is not offended by this either. The others who are involved in the campaign to get the name removed are of another opinion. But overall it boils down to an opinion. Nothing more nothing less. There are certain political views of each party that the others do not agree with the other as well. Those are opinions. Everybody does not think the same and to tell me I am wrong is wrong in and of itself. If I cant have an opinion than this is not the United States.
Okay. I’m going to try to keep this short and civil.
You brought up the domino effect defense, which is an oversimplification and a fallacy. There is no such thing as the "if we get rid of this, then EVERYTHING follows. That does not exist. The last time I saw the domino effect used it was to defend making marriage illegal for homosexuals because “if we let them do it, then we have to let the polygamists and the bestialists and oh god the pedophiles and when will it stop and won’t somebody PLEASE think of the children.”
No. That’s not how it works. That’s an outrageous claim.
Fact: Redskin is a derogatory term. Fact: Redskin is not a tribal term. Fact: Redskin is an offensive term, designed and used to cause offense. Just because individuals are not offended does not make something inoffensive.
This is not a problem that has to do with individuals. Race and racism are societal issues at root. They are communal. The issue is a bigger picture issue. It has nothing to do with five people you know not caring.
And yes, this America and you are entitled to your opinion but the first amendment is not a catch-all loophole for people to be able to defend themselves for being wrong. So here: this is America and I have the right to tell you that you’re wrong. Sorry.
I don't know about that, to the groin.
by howtheyscored on Nov 28, 2009 12:59 AM PST up reply actions
The domino effect is different in this scenario than the one you presented. Couldn’t it be possible that the same group of people that are trying to get the name “redskins” removed also take offense to Chief, Indian, or Brave? If so, could that not present more removals of mascots? I am sure that if I walked up to one of the people in that group and said, “Hey, how’s it goin’ Chief”, I could possibly get punched in the face? I am greatful for the Native American friends that I do have, that they do not think the same as that. It’s not that they don’t care like you implied, its that they see it for what it really is.
According to the Oxford English Dictionary (OED), the term “redskin” came from the reddish skin color of some Native Americans, as in the terms red Indian and red man, and the OED cites instances of its usage in English dating back to the 17th century (and cites a use of red in reference to skin color from 1587).
Multiple theories fight for prominence as to the true historical origin of the word ’redskin. One theory is that the term was meant as merely a physical indicator, similar to the words “white” and “black” for Caucasians and African Americans, respectively. Another theory holds that it was first used by Native Americans during the 1800s as a way of distinguishing themselves from the ever-growing white population.
So tell me, if what you are saying is a FACT, that it is derogatory, is it not possible that the FACT originated from the same group mentioned in the article?
If the word has a recorded history dating back to the 17th century then it should be pretty clear that any theory suggesting it was created by Native Americans in the 1800s is apologist crap.
The word has an ugly history. It’s not the same as the Chiefs or the Braves (though I do support the movements to get rid of that ridiculous Indians logo and the Tomohawk Chop.)
If it’s actually offensive, it should be attacked. That’s not a “domino effect.” That’s just fixing stupidity. Again: individuals not being offended does not make something inoffensive.
I don't know about that, to the groin.
by howtheyscored on Nov 28, 2009 9:07 AM PST up reply actions
is that if you get ris of one, you’ve got to get rid of them all.
Says who?
The people who are complaining are the same ones who complain about all of the relative names.
Not at all. For example, a lot of the people who complained about what Florida State WAS doing now support what they ARE doing.
Like the Celtics for instance, some people may take offense to that. It is just a whirlwind of chaos that you create of you change that team name.
The issue isn’t whether you can come up with a small group of people who might hypothetically take offense. The issue is whether or not there is a substantial percentage of the people so described who find the term offensive.
This is not a difficult dichotomy.
I dated a Navajo girl for over a year so I am not nearly a rascist
Ah, the old “some of my best friends are black” argument. You have have prejudiced ideas against a group and still like individuals of that group. I don’t care how many black friends you have, if you turn around and call someone a “f****ing n****r” you’re using offensive language.
Ah, the old "some of my best friends are black" argument. You have have prejudiced ideas against a group and still like individuals of that group. I don’t care how many black friends you have, if you turn around and call someone a "f****ing n****r" you’re using offensive language.
You have no (Site Decorum) idea what the hell you’re talking about. You know nothing about me and sit there and insinuate that I call black people the “N” word is not only irresponsible but completely uncalled for. My wife is Mexican and my two children are half. So you to sit there on your high horse and spout off a bunch of non-sense with no knowledge of anything is not only absurd but just as ignorant as the people who do use the “N” word. Not one of your responses to mine make any sense and for posting it, it makes you sound that much more stupid and uneducated. Next time you decide to splatter your crap over this blog, make sure you know what you’re talking about first
True, but you get my point
I have a little Cherokee in me (1/64) so I certainly don’t speak for all Native Americans, but the Redskins do not offend me:
or the Seminoles:
or the Blackhawks:
However, I get this one:
Yes rlott#42, Crabtree...can block
Redskins
It’s not the Redskins logo. It’s the word Redskin. I took a class in undergrad with a professor who was an overwhelming percentage Native American and he said it was the equivalent of some rather offensive words I won’t share here.
by David Fucillo on Nov 27, 2009 10:31 PM PST up reply actions
I get it
I just wanted to point out how a racial caricature used as a sports team’s logo is much more offensive to me personally than an archaic racial slur used as a name of a sports team.
Yes rlott#42, Crabtree...can block
Your comment is disturbing.
An “archaic” racial slur is still a racial slur. But from your personal point of view, I suppose 50 years from now, when the N word has been worn out by guys like Chris Rock in their standups, it’ll be okay to call a sports franchise the N. And the same could be said about C (referring to Asians), and H (referring to Whites) when those words have been worn out and carry with them no harmful effects.
Everyone has an opinion, though. It’s too bad ninersnation doesn’t have a Native American blogger. Do we have one, Fooch?
by Waiting4JoshMorgan on Nov 28, 2009 1:10 AM PST up reply actions
How about these words?
Northern Monkey
Used as a pejorative in the South of England, relating to a perceived stupidity and lack of sophistication of those in the North of the country. In some cases this has been adopted in the North of England, with a pub in Leeds even taking the name ‘The Northern Monkey’.
Southern Fairy
A term used in the North of England referring to a perceived pretension and ‘softness’ of those in the South of the country. In some cases the term has been adopted by those in the South of England and has been merchandised to some extent.
Eskimo
A native North American from the northernmost inhabitable areas. In Alaska, the term Eskimo is commonly used. In Canada and Greenland, the term Eskimo has fallen out of favor, as it is considered pejorative by the natives and has been replaced by the term Inuit.
Paddy
A derogatory word for the Irish, Lord Edward FitzGerald, a major leader of the Irish Rebellion of 1798, proclaimed himself proudly “a Paddy and no more” and stated that “he desired no other title than this”.
Chinaman
Chinese person, used in the gold rush and railway-construction eras in western North America, when discrimination against Chinese was common. Though widely used historically without offensive intent, the term today generates controversy. It tends to generate objections especially in the US where Asian-American is the preferred nomenclature. (Note that in cricket, the term “chinaman” is used in a non-ethnic sense to refer to a left-handed bowler who uses a wrist spin action, and that a chinaman was also a type of 18th and 19th C. merchant ship, or a dealer in china ware.)
Yes rlott#42, Crabtree...can block
I don’t see what your point is. With the possible exception of Eskimo, all of those are clearly offensive, and none of them are mascots for major North American sports programs.
I don't know about that, to the groin.
by howtheyscored on Nov 28, 2009 10:20 AM PST up reply actions
Words
With the possible exception of Eskimo, all of those are clearly offensive…
That’s my point. The authors at wiki aren’t nearly as clear about what is offensive and what isn’t as you seem to be. I’m at least sure the Canadian and Greenland Inuit would disagree with you.
The meaning of words change with time. Although I can see some future group using ‘The Eskimos’ as a sports franchise mascot because it represents something positive about the Native American community in Alaska,
I can’t see anyone ever using this as a logo:
Yes rlott#42, Crabtree...can block
NO argument there. Chief Wahoo is an embarasment to baseball.
That being said, I think that the Redskins could find a way to keep their logo, keep their mascot, and change the name to something that wasn’t so offensive.
by Ronaldinho on Nov 28, 2009 10:08 AM PST up reply actions 1 recs
One thing all of these logos have in common if you notice
Is they all have feathers. Feathers to most Native American tribes have and hold a specific meaning. The most common meaning symbolizes truth, honor, strength, wisdom, and power. If these logos were intended to be derogatory or degrading, dont you think that they would have left off something of that nature?
Some are actually honored by these logos contrary to those who dissaprove. Native Americans at a point in time were warriors and are being honored as such. When I look at these logos, I look at it in the same regard I would a Warrior logo, a Spartan logo, a Trojan logo, or any of those similiar in nature.
This team was established in 1932 and has had the name since. They have a band that plays “Hail to the Redskins”. The national anthem ends with an honoring to the Native American. If you take away the name and logo then you take away honor from some of the people who actually appreciate having it on there. The word “Redskins” to me is the same as “Celts” which the team Boston Celtics gets its name form… here is the meaning of Celts:
The historical Celts were a diverse group of tribal societies in Iron Age Europe. Proto-Celtic culture formed in the Early Iron Age (1200 BC-400 AD) in Central Europe (Hallstatt period, named for the site in present-day Austria). By the later Iron Age (La Tène period), Celts had expanded over a wide range of lands: as far west as Ireland and the Iberian Peninsula, as far east as Galatia (central Anatolia), and as far north as Scotland.2
I am half Scottish and my last name is of Scottish decent. Do I speak Celtic? Not every Scottman does. Could that be considered by some to be derogatory? I’m sure there would be people who could. Should I be offended because the word Celts is used to describe people who primarily spoke Celtic? Well I’m not to answer that simply. When people are talking in general conversation typically someone might say in describing someone from afar, “that white guy over there or black guy”, or whatever. So I just dont get how saying Redskins is worse than saying Chiefs, or Braves (which again the “word” Brave is used in the national anthem) or whatever else there is. Are we going to have to modify our national anthem too because someone doesn’t like the lyric of, “Home of the Brave” if we have to change “Redskins” to something else? I just dont see a stop to it if they make them change it. And I am glad that ownership refused to do so.
We all have different skin color and not every race is not the same (different cultures and different people)…and if something of my heritage was being honored on the face of any proffesional sport, I am honored, not offended. Some people see the glass half full and some half empty. Anyway, I made alot more of this than I wanted to but I really do disagree and it would be a shame if something was changed that has 77 years of tradition behind it because a few people woke up one morning and decided they needed something to protest.
Good Example
If I wanted to, I could twist that term in to being derogatory or offensive. Am I going to? No, not at all… Why? I’m not that bored.
There is also a proffesional Rugby team that has that same mascot. “The Highlanders”. You think there’s people in Europe trying to get that removed? Saying it is degrading and that not all Scotts are mountain people and drink Scotch Whiskey. Heck no.
I guess since HTS said I’m wrong, I’ll reserve my opinion from going any futher than this. But I knew as soon as I read the article that there would not be constructive conversation going on here. Certain things should not be brought up in a football blog. I don’t think that it will be enforced at this point anyhow. Termination of the mascot that is.
Nobody is “twisting” Redskin to be offensive, though. It has an actual history as an actual derogatory word. It is not the same as Highlander or Celtic. I don’t see what part of that is hard to figure out.
I don't know about that, to the groin.
by howtheyscored on Nov 28, 2009 9:10 AM PST up reply actions
It most certainly is
what part is hard to figure out that I already gave you a refference stating that it wasn’t derogatory and then you rebut with the typical, “conspiracy theory cover-up” from apologists. What a crock.
What are you talking about? There is a RECORDED use of the word in a derogatory sense as early as 1600!
1699! It’s written down. We HAVE it. It exists as a real thing. How can you seriously argue with a written record that we have physical evidence of?
The guy who says that the word was created by Native Americans in the 1800s says that the letter “looks fake.” He has no legitimate basis for that opinion. I’m not being conspiratorial here. That theory is stupid and completely unsubstantiated. Nobody supports it. It was run in the Washington post by a journalist who wanted to get a few readers by posting something controversial about the Redskin debate. And even THAT article spends most of its time quoting people who are calling it idiotic. You found out about it on wikipedia with no other reference and no support, without having ever seen the actual “theory” that you’re talking about.
And I’M the one who is spewing crap here?
I don't know about that, to the groin.
by howtheyscored on Nov 28, 2009 12:14 PM PST up reply actions
Sorry: 1699, not 1600.
The 9 and the 0 are close together on the keyboard.
I don't know about that, to the groin.
by howtheyscored on Nov 28, 2009 12:14 PM PST up reply actions
I respect you in other posts and your opinion that are 49ers specific
I dont think this topic should have been brought up. Thats my opinion. I am choosing not to continue here because I think it is just irritating the crap out of you and equally me. You are not going to influence the way I feel about it and vice versa.
If we are going to ressurect topics like this (ones that are 16 years old) we may as well have another Michael Vick post or an O.J. post or whatever else contraversial there is to talk about. This is not NN related and I disagree with the entire post.
STUPID!!!
How is it offensive or demeaning? Thats what I’d like to know. The sports teams with those names(Seminoles, Indians, Redskins…) show pride in having the names that they do. So how is it offensive to show pride in a name?
"Bar None!" - William Floyd
Redskins does not equal Seminoles
Seminoles are a tribe. Redskins is a word used to describe Native Americans.
by David Fucillo on Nov 27, 2009 10:31 PM PST up reply actions
The groups have been in a lawsuit with the Redskins for years
Same crap, just a different day.
"Bar None!" - William Floyd
I think this argument is stupid
My wife and I both have strong Cherokee ancestry (she more than I), and I’m not in the least bit offended by the name.
It’s a sports mascot and it’s harmless.
Agreed
I have Blackfoot ancestry on my dads side. If they named a team the Blackfoots I’d take it as a sign of pride. I think more than anything people just like to ahve something to bitch about.
"Bar None!" - William Floyd
Who cares?
I go back to my point earlier in this thread. Calling someone “white” is just offensive as calling someone a “redskin”. I don’t care who brought it on who. It all goes both ways.
"Bar None!" - William Floyd
No. Wrong. Just, absolutely not. “White” does not come with a fraction of the baggage that these other words come with. Just stop. You’re fighting a losing battle if that’s the main point on you sword.
Also wrong in other, more disturbing ways, but I’m trying really hard not to lose my head here so that’s all you get from me.
I don't know about that, to the groin.
by howtheyscored on Nov 28, 2009 1:16 AM PST up reply actions
Actually he is not (as far as "white" and "red" are concerned)
Look the term up in the OED. Both terms for that matter. I think you’ll discover that they are VERY much the same. I find it extremely humorous that people who are not of that specific origin and background get more offended than some who actually are.
If a team got named “The Whiteskins”, I think 99.9% of all white people would laugh and find it humorous. But since people of European descent are the majority, it makes everything else not ok.
Why don’t you define “baggage”, I’d like to see with what you come up with there. Because alot of people that came to this country did not exactly have it easy either. The Irish, The Scottish, Lithuanians, The Chinese, The Italians, the list goes on and on… There is no losing battle. If there is, we are all in it together. Again, people only see what they want to see.
If a team got named "The Whiteskins", I think 99.9% of all white people would laugh and find it humorous.
Another strawman.
BTW what’s your definition of ‘nearly’?
Shaun and Alex ~ A Commitment to Mediocrity
And i’d like to see your subscription to the OED because it looks to me like you just looked up the word Redskin on wikipedia. Nice research there.
The earliest recorded uses of the word came from a letter dated 1699 that speaks of the white people needing protection from “the wicked onslaught of the Red Skin” and worrying what would happen to the world if the “Red Skins” ever had equal legal standing to the whites. Real inoffensive, that.
The supposed theory that the word was created in the 1800s by Native Americans is revisionist/apologist bull. The author of the theory says that the letter from 1699 doesn’t count because it “looks fake.” No actual linguistic or scientific evidence is given. It just “doesn’t look real, come on guys duh!”
But even putting aside etymology, the word has actually been used as a racial slur for hundreds of years. Etymology and usage are not the same. Usage is actually more important. In this case, both the etymology and the usage are offensive.
And I’ll take your subscription only OED (graciously cited on wikipedia with an incomplete definition" and raise you a free-on-the-Internet Merriam-Webster, which defines the word simply as “usually offensive; Native American.”
I don't know about that, to the groin.
by howtheyscored on Nov 28, 2009 9:52 AM PST up reply actions
The supposed theory that the word was created in the 1800s by Native Americans is revisionist/apologist bull. The author of the theory says that the letter from 1699 doesn’t count because it "looks fake." No actual linguistic or scientific evidence is given. It just "doesn’t look real, come on guys duh!"
No actual scientific or linguistic evidence is given in your agenda either. Other than that the people (not even all of them) said so.
If I put together a large group of people that all agreed that the term “Black” Lab was offensive and degrading there could be the same type of discussion as we’re having here. Just because a “group” of people say something is so-called offensive does not make it that.
Merriam-Webster, which defines the word simply as "usually offensive; Native American."
Since when did the word “usually” become permanent and a cocnrete stamp on something? Agin this firthers my point that it is just a group of people that have turned it on to something different than what it was. If it’s a 50/50 split, then how could one even compare to the “N” word? If someone uses that word, I am sure that the ratio turns in to 100% offfensive. Redskin is simply just not the same. White black, brown, yellow, and red are all used to describe skin color. Am I white in color? No… I am more of a pink or tan… do I take offense when someone calls me white? No. Taking it a step further, when a black person or mexican say “whiteboy” could that be considered degrading? Absolutley it is. Is it or has it ever been addressed? Absolutley not. Because anyone who addressses that is considered a rascist in double standard fashion. This is such a meaningless conversation and it will not go anywhere in direction for you or for me. So for the sake of keeping a football blog along football conversation. This is my last post here and I will not re-enter this FanPost as I totally and whole heartedly disagree.
You not taking offense to something doesn’t make it inoffensive, though. Like I said above, it’s a very complicated issue. So often, we turn issues of race and offense into individual issues. “Well, I don’t find it offensive.” Or “Well, I’M not racist, so it’s okay for me to say this.”
And of course, the issues are sociological and cultural ones, which almost never apply on an individual level.
I don't know about that, to the groin.
by howtheyscored on Nov 27, 2009 8:45 PM PST up reply actions
I think that they should be honored in having their heritage tied in with being warriors. It is the same as having a team mascot as the Spartans, or Warriors, or Trojans or anything of that nature; that is the association. That is where the team name derived from.
I’m not sure how the name, redskin, should have anything to do with “honoring” Native Americans. Redskins is a slang term used as a disparaging remark, no? Wasn’t redskins, at one point, in the same category as those other hate words used for Blacks (the n word), Asians (the c or g word), and Whites (the c word)? “In the same category” as in, if you used it in front of a group of Native Americans who knew their history, you’d probably get your arse kicked (or lectured if they’re nice). If this is what urnext is talking about, and if it indeed is the case, than yeah, the name should probably be changed. And those group of peoples have a right to take it to the court.
Mascot or no mascot, I think urnext’s main point was specifically regarding the name itself, not so much the mascot. Or am I wrong about his point?
The sad part about all of this is that Native Americans, it seems, don’t even have a say in the matter, as usually is the case. Do they even care? I think that’s the real question. Although Drew K’s Native American friends, who cheer on their team, seem to suggest that they don’t.
For 16 years a group of people have been in a legal battle with the Washington Redskins in an effort to have their name changed on the grounds that it’s demeaning and offensive
I wonder who that “group of people” are? I take it they’re not Native Americans…
Great post. I enjoyed reading it.
by Waiting4JoshMorgan on Nov 28, 2009 1:00 AM PST reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
