Do native Americans find the name "Redskins" offensive

[The_cavalierman]

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?

You claimed before that native Americans are not offended by the name right?

Link

Well this young lady (who appears to be more native American than you) does not agree with you:

The Term Redskin

Dear Editor; It was brought to my attention that some were asking if the term "redskin" was really offensive to Indians and that they would like to hear from us on this subject. Well, here you are...I am Blackfoot, Cherokee and Choctaw...and yes, the term is extremely offensive to me. Let me explain why. Back not so long ago, when there was a bounty on the heads of the Indian people...the trappers would bring in Indian scalps along with the other skins that they had managed to trap or shoot. These scalps brought varying prices as did the skins of the animals. The trappers would tell the trading post owner or whoever it was that he was dealing with, that he had 2 bearskins, a couple of beaver skins...and a few scalps. Well, the term "scalp" offended the good Christian women of the community and they asked that another term be found to describe these things. So, the trappers and hunters began using the term "redskin"...they would tell the owner that they had bearskin, deer skins....and "redskins." The term came from the bloody mess that one saw when looking at the scalp...thus the term "red"...skin because it was the "skin" of an "animal" just like the others that they had...so, it became "redskins". So, you see when we see or hear that term...we don't see a football team...we don't see a game being played...we don't see any "honor"...we see the bloody pieces of scalps that were hacked off of our men, women and even our children...we hear the screams as our people were killed...and "skinned" just like animals. So, yes, Mr./Ms. Editor...you can safely say that the term is considered extremely offensive.

In Struggle,

Tina Holder

Mesa, Az.

Well since your first time calling me out failed miserably why not try again eh?

The site probably does not approve of people using the N-Word so I do not want to risk getting in trouble or worse yet offending anyone. Since you have one million posts here why don't you say the N word first and I'll follow your lead.

The reputable dictionary links you requested.

Notice how they all mention it is offensive or a slur. Since I proved above that you do not speak for the entire Native American nation here you are again with egg on your face.:laugh:

Merriam-Webster

Cambridge Dictionary

I have more but I think those two do the job just fine..

[The_cavalierman]

This proclaimation would explain why the definition of the word Redskin has not morhped into something positive in over 300 years.

Unfortunately even in that time period native Americans do not realize the level of pure hatred that came with this slur. While some (emphasis on some) Native Americans choose not to be offended today, it still does not change the fact that the word is a slur just like the N-Word.

Redskins fans can choose to ignore these facts but at least you know the truth based on the facts so you are now making a choice.

Link

Proclamation issued in 1755

Given at the Council Chamber in Boston this third day of November 1755 in the twenty-ninth year of the Reign of our Sovereign Lord George the Second by the Grace of God of Great Britain, France, and Iceland, King Defender of the Faith.

By His Honour's command

J. Willard, Secry.

God Save the King

Whereas the tribe of Penobscot Indians have repeatedly in a perfidious manner acted contrary to their solemn submission unto his Majesty long since made and frequently renewed.

I have therefore, at the desire of the House of Representatives ... thought fit to issue this Proclamation and to declare the Penobscot Tribe of Indians to be enimies, rebels, and traitors to his Majesty. And I do hereby require his Majesty's subjects of the Province to embrace all opportunities of pursuing, captivating, killing, and destroy all and every one of the aforesaid Indians.

And wereas the General Court of this Province have voted that a bounty.... be granted and allowed to be paid out of the Province Treasury.... The premiums of bounty following viz:

For every scalp of a male Indian brought in as evidence of their being killed as aforesaid, forty pounds.

For every scalp of such female Indian or male Indian under the age of twelve years that shall be killed and brought in as evidence of their being killed as aforesaid, twenty pounds.

[Larry]

You claimed before that native Americans are not offended by the name right?

Link

Well this young lady does not agree with you:

Congratulations.

You've now conclusively proven that the term is offensive. To one person.

Since I'm Native American, also, I guess the score is now 1 to 1.

Hmmm. How should we break this tie?

We could both throw individual anecdotes at each other.

Or, I know! We could take a survey.

And how convenient! It's already been done. (Dozens of times. By dozens of people.)

And, as far as I'm aware, all of them say that the term is offensive to a very tiny minority of Native Americans.

(I guess this might explain why (at least according to something I read 10 years ago. May have changed, since we're not winning like we used to.) the Redskins sell more merchandise on reservations than any other NFL team. All those folks who want to pay 40 bucks for a t-shirt so they can be even more offended.)

[The_cavalierman]

Congratulations.

You've now conclusively proven that the term is offensive. To one person.

Since I'm Native American, also, I guess the score is now 1 to 1.

Hmmm. How should we break this tie?

We could both throw individual anecdotes at each other.

Or, I know! We could take a survey.

And how convenient! It's already been done. (Dozens of times. By dozens of people.)

And, as far as I'm aware, all of them say that the term is offensive to a very tiny minority of Native Americans.

(I guess this might explain why (at least according to something I read 10 years ago. May have changed, since we're not winning like we used to.) the Redskins sell more merchandise on reservations than any other NFL team. All those folks who want to pay 40 bucks for a t-shirt so they can be even more offended.)

Right and wrong should never be confused with matters of numbers my friend.

If you stole a purse but 100 people who saw you steal it decided you were a nice guy does that change the fact that you did steal the purse?

This is still a matter of right versus wrong...if it is one person or 2 billion

:laugh:

[no1fanofno21]

i beg to differ to all that say Native Americans don't find the name Redskins offensive. I am taking a native american lit class and one of the books we read concentrated on sports names and such and had many bad things to say about the name Redskins.

(the book was Rez Road Follies by Jim Northrup)

we have read poetry and other such lit that has said the name is very offensive as well. I believe the study in PA was on the helmet logo not the name. And look at colleges why do you think that the Illinois Illini mascot was removed.

It is very offensive to the Native Americans. And im surprised Danny boy hasn't changed the name, he would make even more money off new uniforms and memrobilia. Im not completely for changing the name but these little studies in PA probably don't even know that the Natives still live in Minnesota on reservations.

[Larry]

Yep. You're right. All words and symbols, today, mean exactly what they meant when they were first invented. What they mean now is irrelevant. The only acceptable meaning (to you) is the origin of the label.

So, you're all OK with people displaying the Confederate flag, right?

I mean, I know that lately, some groups like the segregationists and the KKK have associated that symbol with themselves. But the only meaning that that symbol can possibly have, to you, is the meaning it had (in the words of your source) "not so long ago" (meaning 100 years ago). And that meaning is that it represents a group of Patriots who chose to rebel against a distant government which they felt wasn't representing them.

It's not a symbol of racism and bigotry, because meanings never change. The only thing that matters is: What did the label mean when it was first created.

(When you finish with that one, I'll point out that the word "gymnasium" originally meant "place where one goes nude", and therefore I think you should go work out naked, and explain to the nice people that that is what the facility is intended for.)

[The_cavalierman]

Yep. You're right. All words and symbols, today, mean exactly what they meant when they were first invented. What they mean now is irrelevant. The only acceptable meaning (to you) is the origin of the label.

So, you're all OK with people displaying the Confederate flag, right?

I mean, I know that lately, some ground like the segregationists and the KKK have associated that symbol with themselves. But the only meaning that that symbol can possibly have, to you, is the meaning it had (in the words of your source) "not so long ago" (meaning 100 years ago). And that meaning is that it represents a group of Patriots who chose to rebel against a distant government which they felt wasn't representing them.

It's not a symbol of racism and bigotry, because meanings never change. The only thing that matters is: What did the label mean when it was first created.

(When you finish with that one, I'll point out that the word "gymnasium" originally meant "place where one goes nude", and therefore I think you should go work out naked, and explain to the nice people that that is what the facility is intended for.)

Some words can morph into something else while others can't. It is more than obvious by now that dispite your zealous attempts Redskin is not one that morphed.

Actually I have no problem with the display of the confederate flag. The real question with the Confederate flag is WHERE it is displayed.

Obviously the word Redskin has had 300 years to morph into something positive but it has not....please explain that if you can.

It is comical watching your argument disentegrate from proving that the word is a slur to how many people are offended by the slur.

I have proved it is a slur

I have proved that their are native Americans offended by this word

The only argument left is the numbers which really isn't an argument at all.

This is a matter of right versus wrong so the numbers mean nothing.

[Larry]

Obviously the word Redskin has had 300 years to morph into something positive but it has not....please explain that if you can.

And it HAS. Dozens of people have been beating you over the head with that fact for this entire thread. And you keep responding with "well, it doesn't matter what it means to actual people. (Unless you find one person you agree with. Then that person's opinion matters.) What matters is what it meant 300 years ago. Or what it means to one person I found. Or what's "Right" (to you)."

Greedy white men aren't turning in scalps for a living any more. There isn't a single person alive who has in any way experienced that.

The term's changed. Just like the "Confederate flag" has. It changed 50 years ago.

(Just like "the n-word" has. It wasn't originally an insult, simply a label of a group. It came to be associated with a negative stereotype, and nowdays a lot of people consider it offensive. (And this is reinforced by the fact that the term has been recognized as offensive for long enough that, whenever someone uses the term, the assumption is that the term has been deliberately chosen because it is offensive.))

(Here's another news flash: Buffalo Bill is dead, too. Nowdays, the term means "Super Bowl-losing football team".)

[The_cavalierman]

And it HAS. Dozens of people have been beating you over the head with that fact for this entire thread. And you keep responding with "well, it doesn't matter what it means to actual people. (Unless you find one person you agree with. Then that person's opinion matters.) What matters is what it meant 300 years ago. Or what it means to one person I found. Or what's "Right" (to you)."

Greedy white men aren't turning in scalps for a living any more. There isn't a single person alive who has in any way experienced that.

The term's changed. Just like the "Confederate flag" has. It changed 50 years ago.

(Just like "the n-word" has. It wasn't originally an insult, simply a label of a group. It came to be associated with a negative stereotype, and nowdays a lot of people consider it offensive. (And this is reinforced by the fact that the term has been recognized as offensive for long enough that, whenever someone uses the term, the assumption is that the term has been deliberately chosen because it is offensive.))

(Here's another news flash: Buffalo Bill is dead, too. Nowdays, the term means "Super Bowl-losing football team".)

1. Clarification - The original definition of the N-Word was ignorance and it applied to anyone of any ethnicity. It was intended as an insult because if you called someone the N-word then you were not complementing them.

2. Ok, if the word has changed what has it changed into?

• The football team?
  
• Potatoes?
  

If that is the case why are they rarely mentioned in most dictionaries? You keep saying it has changed but the you provide no proof ofyour claim. The mechanism which is globally accepted as the standard for keeping track of our ever-evolving language is dictionaries which all seem to disagree with your opinion.

3. Just because people are no longer scalping Native Americans and [some] native Americans are no longer offended does not mean the word is no longer a slur.

A while back you suggested I call a Native American a Redskin and an African American the N-word and judge the results. Well I have proved that some Native Americans out there might be as offended as African Americans.

4. The other factor we have not discussed is the fact that we are Redskins fans and the football team has a great deal of tradition that goes with the name. A lot of people would not change the name (right or wrong) for that reason alone.

[Larry]

1. Clarification - The original definition of the N-Word was ignorance and it applied to anyone of any ethnicity. It was intended as an insult because if you called someone the N-word then you were not complementing them.

Granted, I wasn't around then, but the origin I've always been told for the term was that it was an Anglicization of the term "negro", which was the romance-language term for "black". (The color).

2. Ok, if the word has changed what has it changed into?

• The football team?
  
• Potatoes?
  

If that is the case why are they rarely mentioned in most dictionaries? You keep saying it has changed but the you provide no proof ofyour claim. The mechanism which is globally accepted as the standard for keeping track of our ever-evolving language is dictionaries which all seem to disagree with your opinion.

1) I have provided proof. Dozens of people have. The vast majority of Native Americans say it's not offensive to them. Your response: "What they think it means doesn't matter".

And the vast majority of the times it's used, it's used to refer to a football team. Again, your response is "How people use the word doesn't matter".

2) Dictionaries also don't list proper names.

I'd bet you that the most common usage, in the US, of the term "phoenix", is to refer to a town in Arizona. The second most common, I'd bet, is either an air-to-air missile or a comic book character. But I'd bet that none of those are listed in the dictionary, because they're proper names.

Just as I'd bet, the term "smith" is used over 95% of the time to refer to a person, not a reference to someone who makes horse shoes (or swords). But I'd bet that, in a dictionary, under "smith", "Most common surname in the United States" isn't listed.

3. Just because people are no longer scalping Native Americans and [some] native Americans are no longer offended does not mean the word is no longer a slur.

Unfortunately for your case, the fact that some Native Americans (and a note of clarification: When referring to Natives who aren't offended, the correct terms are "most", or "the vast majority", or "nearly all". When referring to those who are offended, then the term "some" is correct. I thought I'd point that out, you being so concerned with the proper usage of the language and all) chose to be offended (and I'll assert that the vast majority of those who claim to be offended, are making that claim because they've made a conscious decision that they want to be offended) doesn't matter a whole lot, either.

Because then you have to discuss "how many"?

I think everybody would agree that the nation is not obligated to discontinue the use of a word simply because one person wants it to.

I think a lot (but not all) would agree that if a term is offensive to a vast majority of people, then people really ought to stop using it, out of politeness if nothing else.

So the question then becomes: How many people have to be offended in order to create upon society the obligation to change to suit the offended. (And you also have to consider "how many people of what group?" In order to declare "the n-word" offensive, is it necessary for a majority of Americans to be offended? Or is it sufficient for a majority of black Americans be offended?)

(Me, I would claim that, in order for a group to demand that the world change to suit them, the group needs to be large enough to be significant, and a majority of the group needs to have a problem with it.)

A while back you suggested I call a Native American a Redskin and an African American the N-word and judge the results. Well I have proved that some Native Americans out there might be as offended as African Americans.

1) No, it wasn't me.

2) But the poster had a point (which you've chosen to ignore.) To the vast majority of blacks, if you call them the n-word, then you've specifically requested a fight. To the vast majority of Native Americans, if you call them a Redskin, they'll wonder where you parked your time machine.

3) What you've proven is that one person has chosen to be offended by the word. Which is a long way from "proving" that the primary use of the term is offensive.

4. The other factor we have not discussed is the fact that we are Redskins fans and the football team has a great deal of tradition that goes with the name. A lot of people would not change the name (right or wrong) for that reason alone.

Agreed. Homerism can cause distorted results.

But for one thing, I'll point out that I've been a Native American for 50 years (in a few weeks). I've been a Redskins fan for a bit over 30. I've never been offended by the term "Redskin". (In fact, I'd say that the first time I heard it, was in reference to the football team.)

And that's also why I (and others) keep pointing out that the term isn't offensive to people who aren't Redskins fans, either.

It's not a case of "it's offensive to pretty much everybody who isn't in the KKK". It's a case of "it isn't offensive to pretty much anybody who isn't a political activist looking for a fight".

[REDSKINZ-RIDEORDIE]

Wow, good post. I always thought that our logo showed the Native American as a dignified warrior. The profile is that of an actual man. Not a nation, or a tribe. You don't see a bunch of banging on drums or tomahawk chops by our team or our fans. We treat the image with the respect it deserves.

Great post. I never looked at our logo in that way.

[isle-hawg]

2. Ok, if the word has changed what has it changed into?

• The football team?
  

If that is the case why are they rarely mentioned in most dictionaries?

Because the dictionaries do not cover the names of institutions such as sports franchises.

There is no debate the term Redskins when applied to a person or an American Aborigines is considered a slur (however same could be said for calling them Indians).

In using the term Redskins as in context to our beloved team is a different story however as Larry, HH and many others point out. The term Redskins (as applied solely to our team of today) does not meet any dictionary's definition of a slur. As the team in no way currently seeks to marginalize American Aborigines, quite the opposite.

[Seabee1973]

None of the ones I have spoken with in UT or NM think the name is offensive & they are actually fans of the team. Especially in the Albuquerque area.

they cant find it to offensive a lot ogf the indian high schools use the same mascots and names 1 school is the shiprock chieftans another is in northern AZ and their school mascot is the redskins

[Teller]

(When you finish with that one, I'll point out that the word "gymnasium" originally meant "place where one goes nude", and therefore I think you should go work out naked, and explain to the nice people that that is what the facility is intended for.)

There are three other definitions that have changed over the years that he's not aware of too, Larry. They are, in order, "clowned," "schooled," and "owned."

[SkinFaninOKC]

I work with a few Native Americans. The female co-worker could care less. One male co-worker calls me "Racist" as a joke. It doesn't bother him because I don't use the word "Redskin" in any other way except to show my team spirit.

NOW...the other co-worker...would like to see the name changed. Let me say he is a Cowboys fan and USE TO POST ON THE ESPN MESSAGE AS 90039 or something close to that number. His only reason to post was to ruffle feathers which he did several years back.