Do native Americans find the name "Redskins" offensive

[The_cavalierman]

really? go call a black guy the n-word, and then go call a native american a redskin, and see which one kicks the crap out of you, and which one looks at you quizzically.

Both are slurs as defined by most reputable dictionaries...so your practical exercise, while cute has zero bearing. The N-word is used a lot more than Redskins in a practical sense but Redskins is every bit the slur that the N-word is. If it were not then over the course of hundreds of years reputable dictionaries would have added changes in the definition to include nicer things but they have not. In most dictionaries Redskin is still clearly defined as a slur. Some dictionaries do recognized the football team of the same name but they still reference the word as a slur.

Both words are defined slurs so that should be enough. Contrary to popular opinion an Native American's feelings on the issue are irrelevant as this is a very simple matter of right and wrong.

What are you gonna teach your kids about the word when they look it up themselves in the dictionary and it clearly says the word is a racial slur?

"Oh it's ok little johnny/Suzy because indians don't mind"

[greenspandan]

Both words are defined slurs so that should be enough. Contrary to popular opinion an Native American's feelings on the issue are irrelevant as this is a very simple matter of right and wrong.

listen, a slur is a slur becaue it is offensive. if it is not offensive, it is not a slur. it's very simple. IF the word is not offensive, but the dictionary says it is, then the dictionary is wrong. simple as that.

remember, language is an organic thing. it changes over time. the dictionary CHRONICLES language, it doesn't DEFINE it. the dictionaries comes out with a new version every year (or online ones constantly evolve) because they acknowledge that they merely reflect how people use language, they don't define it inherently.

this is all moot anyway, because nobody should care whether a dictionary is offended or not. the point is whether or not we're hurting people with the word "redskin" and overwhelmingly the consensus from those who would be hurt seems to be "whatever, we don't care" or even "it's cool".

[The_cavalierman]

listen, a slur is a slur becaue it is offensive. if it is not offensive, it is not a slur. it's very simple. IF the word is not offensive, but the dictionary says it is, then the dictionary is wrong. simple as that.

remember, language is an organic thing. it changes over time. the dictionary CHRONICLES language, it doesn't DEFINE it. the dictionaries comes out with a new version every year (or online ones constantly evolve) because they acknowledge that they merely reflect how people use language, they don't define it inherently.

this is all moot anyway, because nobody should care whether a dictionary is offended or not. the point is whether or not we're hurting people with the word "redskin" and overwhelmingly the consensus from those who would be hurt seems to be "whatever, we don't care" or even "it's cool".

If it is not a slur why after hundred of years do most reputable dictionaries as well as new age dictionaries still define it first and foremost as a slur?

I agree that languages are organic and they evolve but according to even the newest dictionaries on the block the word Redskin has not morphed into something positive at all. The fact is that despite our love of our team and it's traditions the name is based on a slur. It may have been done with the best of intentions but if we all recognize dictionaries as the keepers of the language cheese then we cannot ignore them when it is convenient.

Our history is what it is...warts and all. This is not a matter of political correctness as much as right and wrong as defined by our own dictionaries that we trust every day...except right now apparently. I started posting in this discussion knowing fully that even armed with irrefutable facts people would still try to justify the use/acceptance of a clearly defined slur. I know I am not going to change anyone's mind here but I am will not accept something that is clearly wrong just because it is the popular thing to do.

[greenspandan]

If it is not a slur why after hundred of years do most reputable dictionaries as well as new age dictionaries still define it first and foremost as a slur?

I agree that languages are organic and they evolve but according to evening the newest dictionaries on the block the word Redskin has not morphed into something positive at all. Please explain why it hasn't or it might be time to acknowledge that 3200lb gorilla called the truth on your back.

I started posting in this discussion knowing fully that even armed with irrefutable facts people would still try to justify the use/acceptance of a clearly defined slur.

I know I am not going to change anyone's mind here but I am will not accept something that is clearly wrong just because it is the popular thing to do.

dude, you want to have a discussion, cool, but leave the tired martyr crap out of it, hero!

anyway, my point about the poor, offended dictionaries is this: what makes a word a slur? the fact that it's offensive, right? well if people aren't offended, then how is it offensive? how is it a slur? this is an honest question. people aren't going to be offended just because the dictionary tells them to be offended.

[FunBunch7]

really? go call a black guy the n-word, and then go call a native american a redskin, and see which one kicks the crap out of you, and which one looks at you quizzically.

:munchout:

[Larry]

If a word is defined as a slur by most reputable dictionaries then your opinions as well as those of your fellow native Americans do not matter on this subject.

Your argument is not only illogical, it is factually incorrect.

The mission of a dictionary definition is to reflect the common, current, usage of a term.

Therefore, if most people think it's not offensive, then those people aren't wrong, the dictionary is.

[The_cavalierman]

dude, you want to have a discussion, cool, but leave the tired martyr crap out of it, hero!

anyway, my point about the poor, offended dictionaries is this: what makes a word a slur? the fact that it's offensive, right? well if people aren't offended, then how is it offensive? how is it a slur? this is an honest question. people aren't going to be offended just because the dictionary tells them to be offended.

Good thing your flawed perceptions are not the reality I operate in. Save your hero and martyr accusations for the same crowd that throws out the dictionary when it does not suit your agenda.

So you you trusted your dictionary all of your life right up until the point you disagreed with it. My point has nothing to do with people being or not being offended.

It has everything to do with a word being clearly defined as a slur, but thousands if not millions of people ignoring that pesky fact for the sake of convenience and tradition.

No matter how zealously you attempt to shape a justification for a slur the facts are not on your side. Perhaps we can agree to disagree?

[Chachie]

I like to be called "cracka"

I prefer "Chalky."

[The_cavalierman]

Your argument is not only illogical, it is factually incorrect.

The mission of a dictionary definition is to reflect the common, current, usage of a term.

Therefore, if most people think it's not offensive, then those people aren't wrong, the dictionary is.

The dictionary is wrong

Yet people buy them and use them as a frame of reference for the advancement or the written word and western civilization as we know it.

Dude you should really quit while you are so drastically behind..

The Dictionary's mission is exactly what you stated yet you will seldom if ever find a change in the definition of the word Redskin which serves to invalidate your flawed point even further.

Your opinion is flawed but noted...

[pjfootballer]

Oh really, well I worked for the Gila River Tribe and Casino a few years back and most of the Natives there stated that they like to call themselves skins when talking about each other but "redskin" is offensive but why complain ? Nothing will be done about it ...Will it ?

and you know what they say....If one person finds a slur offensive...

ITS OFFENSIVE......

Don't try to add numbers to it and use that as validation of it not being a Racial Slur....It is and you all know it is...

So if I say that the name "Boncrusher" offends me, then it is? Get real. It takes more than one person. Remember, we're in a democracy and majority rules. I didn't make the rules. That's just how it is.

[Larry]

Tell ya what.

Go do a Google search on the word "Redksin". Click on, say, the first 100 (or maybe 1,000) links you get.

Break down the number of times the word "Redskin" is used to refer to the following items:

• An NFL franchise
  
• People complaining that the word ought to be offensive
  
• A potato
  
• People of Native American ancestry.
  

I'm willing to bet you that

1. I've ranked the "number of times the term means this" in order according to how many times it's used. That yes, the word Redskin refers to potatoes more often than it refers to an ethnicity.
   
2. That the first definition I've given is not only the most prevelant use of the term, but that it accounts for over 90% of the usage.
   

[pjfootballer]

I prefer "Chalky."

I'm blonde-haired and fair skined, so I guess I really am a Pale Face. :laugh: I burn like there's no tomorrow out in the sun.

[greenspandan]

My point has nothing to do with people being or not being offended.

It has everything to do with a word being clearly defined as a slur, but thousands if not millions of people ignoring that pesky fact for the sake of convenience and tradition.

you're not making any sense. a slur by definition is an offensive term. if it's not offending anyone, it's not a slur. the reason racism or racial slurs are bad is because of the harm it causes to human beings. that's the POINT of those terms. if "redskin" doesn't offend anyone, doesn't contribute to racism, then i have no problem using it. it also means the disctonary is erroneous in its labeling of the term a slur.

just to clarify, we are both arguing within the (hypothetical) framework of teh word "redskin" not actually offending any humans. (this is from YOUR argumentation, not mine!)

[pjfootballer]

i'm native american & very passionate about my heritage however, while i find the term Redskin in & of itself to be offnsive i am not offended by the use of this term to represent a team name, ESPECIALLY when you consider the fact that a) the game of American football derives from a game created by native americans & the Redskins organization has been a staple of the NFL/NFC since the advent of organized football in america.

this lends to the name being used in a revered way, in a sense of paying respects. you have to realize that this was not necessarily a widely used derogatory word at the time of the 'Skins origin...it was recognized but not used so much as terms like Indian which became Enjun, or savages, or the like. to me, personally the term Indian is more offensive & i'll tell you why.

the term "Indian" was coined by Christopher Columbus & his spanish armada to describe what they believed to be actual Indians...FROM INDIA, of course believing that he had sailed around the world! later we would come to find that this simply wasn't true & that he had actually discovered what we so lovingly refer to as North America.

the term Redskin is very simple...it describes the person by the color of their skin.

one is an observation of skin color & the other is an INACCURATE label coined by a bunch of a-holes that brought, among many other ways of dealing death, smallpox & Christianity/Inquisition.

at the end of the day, most native Americans could give two dingleberries what the white-man has to say about them. but inaccurate depictions, representations or portrayals for the purpose of amusement or entertainment are what really gets my/our goat.

if you keep these two things in mind you'll be ok:

1) we detest the drunken indian & the term "indian" in reference to us.

2) we absolutely abhor, nay loathe the "tamahawk chop." while it sounds catchy, is pleasing to the ear & gets the whole crowd involved it is NOTHING like any chant we would ever perform & the hand-chop bit is like if they had a team called the "n----rs" (as if that wouldn't be bad enough) & then chanted some stupid vanilla ice rap & were pointing two fingers & thumb in unison as if they were "poppin' a cap in yo a**."

tell me there wouldn't be a civil war over that...

Very good and well thouhgt out post.

One thing that gets to me and this is a little off subject to the original intent of the thread, is how come every time slavery or "we stole the Native American's land" is brought up, only American's get blamed for these atrocities? I mean, slavery has been around since the dawn of man, yet American's get run through the ringer about it. Conquering lands, villages and sometimes races has also been going on for thousands of years, yet only American's not of color are villified for both. Makes me wonder why we continue to get blamed for something I had no part in.

[greenspandan]

Dude you should really quit while you are so drastically behind..

The Dictionary's mission is exactly what you stated yet you will seldom if ever find a change in the definition of the word Redskin which serves to invalidate your flawed point even further.

Your opinion is flawed but noted...

please, you're not even thinking. you've made your decision and reiterated your point. please rebut the following argument (that you have with your arguments only reinforced):

1. "slur" means a term is racially offensive. (you put forth this argument)

2. the term "redskin" does not offend anyone (you agreed with this as well).

3. therefore the term "redskin" does not fit the definition of the word "slur".

i guess what i'm looking for is, WHY is the term "redskin" bad, other than "the dictionary says so".

[Larry]

Um, I'll also point out:

Dictionaries not only list words definitions. They also list word's origins. While the definition and usage may change over time, the origin never will.

I think it's a safe bet that, 100 years from now, the origin of the term "Redskin" will still be "ethnic slur". (Because that's what it came from.)

[dwbiggs]

I'm pissed and totally offended by the Andorians calling the humans "pink skins" on Star Trek Enterprise!

[Larry]

I'm pissed and totally offended by the Andorians calling the humans "pink skins" on Star Trek Enterprise!

(They should have had a black character say that, sometime during the show.)

[asnpcwiz]

I don't know about Native Americans, but I LOVE being called "Slant Eyes"!

[The_cavalierman]

please, you're not even thinking. you've made your decision and reiterated your point. please rebut the following argument (that you have with your arguments only reinforced):

1. "slur" means a term is racially offensive. (you put forth this argument)

2. the term "redskin" does not offend anyone (you agreed with this as well).

3. therefore the term "redskin" does not fit the definition of the word "slur".

i guess what i'm looking for is, WHY is the term "redskin" bad, other than "the dictionary says so".

What was the word created to do?

Let me help you...it was created to negatively describe native americans. It was also used to describe the scalps of dead native americans needed to pay off bountys.

If the word was created as an offensive slur and the definition has not changed with time as many have suggested then it still is a slur. If the slur were going to take on a positive definition I think it would have by now. The fact that most reputable dictionaries still list it as a slur is proof positive your opinion is flawed.

Now because you have been proven flawed you are taking aim at Dictionaries that you have trusted all of your life. The lengths you are going through to make your flawed points are commendable but once again the dictionaries are pretty clear on what the word means.

[greenspandan]

What was the word created to do?

Let me help you...it was created to negatively describe native americans. It was also used to describe the scalps of dead native americans needed to pay off bountys.

the first half of your point is true. it was created to describe native americans negatively. we are in agreement there.

If the word was created as an offensive slur and the definition has not changed with time as many have suggested then it still is a slur.

you are correct here, too. IF the word's meaning was still offensive, THEN it is still a slur. but if it's NOT offensive -- if the term does not offend people -- then it is no longer a slur. is this true or false? do you deny this?

The fact that most reputable dictionaries still list it as a slur is proof positive your opinion is flawed.

meanwhile, the fact that 90% of native americans take no offense to the term is proof positive my opinion is correct. who are you going to believe, the dictionary, or the people themselves? personally, i want to be very careful not to offend a disadvantaged people. but i don't give a crap if i offend a dictionary.

Now because you have been proven flawed you are taking aim at Dictionaries that you have trusted all of your life. The lengths you are going through to make your flawed points are commendable but once again the dictionaries are pretty clear on what the word means.

you keep declaring yourself the victor. that kind of silliness is making it really hard to have a discussion, dude.

and my issue isn't with dictionaries. it's with your strange obsession with accepting their semantic decisions as empirical moral guidance.

[The_cavalierman]

the first half of your point is true. it was created to describe native americans negatively. we are in agreement there.

you are correct here, too. IF the word's meaning was still offensive, THEN it is still a slur. but if it's NOT offensive -- if the term does not offend people -- then it is no longer a slur. is this true or false? do you deny this?

meanwhile, the fact that 90% of native americans take no offense to the term is proof positive my opinion is correct. who are you going to believe, the dictionary, or the people themselves? personally, i want to be very careful not to offend a disadvantaged people. but i don't give a crap if i offend a dictionary.

you keep declaring yourself the victor. that kind of silliness is making it really hard to have a discussion, dude.

and my issue isn't with dictionaries. it's with your strange obsession with accepting their semantic decisions as empirical moral guidance.

Once again I thank the Gods that your perceptions are not my reality.

I neither claim victory nor am I providing any form of moral guidance. The proof of this is that you are still arguing your points and I obviously have not changed your mind (which was never my intent).

My intent was to present the facts and let the chips fall where they may. Thus far I have seen nothing here to sway my opinions in any way. Infact it has only galvanized my opinions on the issue.

The issue that some folks cannot fight no matter how much they try is the dictionaries that they have trusted and used all of their lives are now not trust worthy when they want to keep a name created for the sole purpose of being an ethnic slur.

Since this back and forth could potentially go on forever I will commend you for your zealous arguments and I will agree to disagree with you (which I offered earlier and you obviously did chose to ignore).

[greenspandan]

................ok!

[Teller]

Both are slurs as defined by most reputable dictionaries...so your practical exercise, while cute has zero bearing.

This is the second time you've made this false statement, and therefore the second time I'm calling you on it.

Please post a link from one "reputable dictionary" to the definitions and useages of the word "redskin" and the "n-word." Kindly compare and contrast the definitions and useages.

Also, please explain why, when you state that the words are equal in their disparagement, you type out the word "redskin," but refer to the other as the "n-word." I guess if they're equal, but you have no problem using one of them, we can make our own assumptions about how you really feel about American Indians. :laugh:

pwn3t anyone?

[81artmonk]

My question is, if black people didn't think the word ****** was offensive, than would it be other than historically?

Sure the words definition may be, but if the word has no power, due to no one taking it in an offensive manner, than IMO it isnt offensive anymore. IMO somethings only offensive if people take it that way.

If I tell a polish joke in a family setting where we are all polish and no one takes offense to it, is it still offensive?? IMO no.