ESPN: American Indians look to high court (Merged)

[BuryYourDuke]

You are kidding, right? :doh:

No I wasn't kidding. And neither were the founders with the First Amendment.

[Old Bay]

The names Braves, Indians, and Chiefs (to a lesser degree) are also offensive to me for the same reason that the name Redskins is offensive. They reinforce a popular Native American stereotype. But the name Redskins is the one that people really take aim at because it's so blatant. Red-colored skin = fierce warrior. Something like that. The other team names are basically saying the same thing but they don't bang you over the head with it. (Of course, the Chief Wahoo logo adopted by the Indians seemed to speak to an entirely different, playful and non-threatening quality attributed to Native Americans. And people found plenty offensive about that. Let's save that one for another time though.) I think the name Chiefs is a little different. It does seem to reinforce a stereotype, but then again not all Native Americans were Chiefs, so maybe it's okay to pay tribute to the ones that rose to chiefdom.

This is something I had not considered. Kudos to you for bringing up another perspective. I can see this, and it is something else to mull over.

Something else to consider, though, regarding the stereotype. Not all Native Americans were warriors, so a tribute to those that were doesn't seem innapropriate does it?

[InsaneBoost]

What do you NOT like about freedom of speech?

I think there are certain boundaries to freedom of speech. Burning the countries flag that you live in is one of them to me.

[HailToTheRedskins14]

I apologize for the confusion.

I recommend decaf though.

Sorry if I came off rude, didn't mean to. Just stating my opinion on it and it really wasn't anything directed to you at all.

[HailToTheRedskins14]

I think there are certain boundaries to freedom of speech. Burning the countries flag that you live in is one of them to me.

It absolutely is. As I said in this thread already, you can't pick and choose which liberties you want when it is convenient to you.

[InsaneBoost]

Slim your're young aren't you? So lets get this str8, you own a business. Whether you're racist or not it ought to be common sense that a white person, black person, red person, yellow person adds up to one thing your green dollar.

Slim?

Back in Marshalls day, how many blacks, reds and yellows did you see at games? Were talking the day of race issues still. So he wouldn't have been getting any if at all from anyone other than white people.

Cutting off basically the entire South to Texas would have cost him big.

[Hooper]

Sorry if I came off rude, didn't mean to. Just stating my opinion on it and it really wasn't anything directed to you at all.

Not necessary, my friend.

Hail.

[InsaneBoost]

It absolutely is. As I said in this thread already, you can't pick and choose which liberties you want when it is convenient to you.

The constitution picks what we can and can't do or in this case say. If I want to run around saying racist words, I technically should be allowed to. However the constitution says otherwise because its offensive.

Now I'm not racist so I have no problem with it, but that's my point. I find it offensive when someone burns the United States of America flag and I can tell you I'm not the only one, so why should that be anymore right than running around calling people racial names.

[cphil006]

The constitution picks what we can and can't do or in this case say. If I want to run around saying racist words, I technically should be allowed to. However the constitution says otherwise because its offensive.

Now I'm not racist so I have no problem with it, but that's my point. I find it offensive when someone burns the United States of America flag and I can tell you I'm not the only one, so why should that be anymore right than running around calling people racial names.

How does the constitution say otherwise because it's offensive. Kind of subjective.

I don't think anyone today calls some a red-skin out of hate. If we were the pig-skins would that be offensive? Or is it the color? red?

Redskins being a privately owned team should have the right to call them selves whatever they want in this free country.

[Byner21]

For those of you that wonder where the red clay/paint theory came from... I first read of it in the Redskins Media Guide. They suggest it was from Smithsonian Institute. Perhaps they used this reference and study by Nancy Shoemaker in the American Historical Review:

http://www.providencecc.net/faculty/ryanmcilhenny/Shoemaker_Indians%20Got%20Red.pdf

page 625, 626, 628 mentions red paint. page 635 mentions clay and how it was used to make the paint.

Page 632 suggests that when chiefs were painted red it was for war. Painted white for peace.

How accurace anyone's research is always debatable. This seems more solid than anyone's assumptions from thin air. There were many different "Native American" tribes and different ways could have been used to coin the term "red-skin"

offensive? depends on your point of view. Learn the origin and perhaps it'll change your point of view.

Great find, and great points. And the LA Times article from today makes reference to the red paint/clay.

So the name might refer to face paint or it might refer to skin color. Or apparently, some think it refers to the bloody scalps. We just don't know, at least not yet.

I bet if you walked around and started polling Americans, or even the parking lot at FedEx Field on Sunday, greater than 90%...I would guess maybe even something like 99%...would say that the name "Redskin" refers to skin color. Public understanding counts for something here, doesn't it? Not saying that people should cater to ignorance or anything. But if the 'skins organization strongly stands behind the face paint thesis, and feels that this makes a real difference in the argument here, then there should be some public campaign to clarify everyone's misunderstanding.

Let me reiterate that even if the name refers to face paint, I am still not comfortable with it, because as far as I can tell all roads lead back to reinforcing a stereotype of a specific ethnic group of people, whether we are talking about their skin color or the color of the paint on their faces.

[DCMONEY]

Slim?

Back in Marshalls day, how many blacks, reds and yellows did you see at games? Were talking the day of race issues still. So he wouldn't have been getting any if at all from anyone other than white people.

Cutting off basically the entire South to Texas would have cost him big.

Ok man, so you believe what you want to believe.

[Old Bay]

Ok man, so you believe what you want to believe.

Well, in this situation it may be a little of both.

[HailToTheRedskins14]

The constitution picks what we can and can't do or in this case say. If I want to run around saying racist words, I technically should be allowed to. However the constitution says otherwise because its offensive.

Now I'm not racist so I have no problem with it, but that's my point. I find it offensive when someone burns the United States of America flag and I can tell you I'm not the only one, so why should that be anymore right than running around calling people racial names.

Actually if you want to run around offending people, feel free to do it.

What is gonna happen to you if you call someone a bad word? Are you gonna be arrested?

[InsaneBoost]

Actually if you want to run around offending people, feel free to do it.

What is gonna happen to you if you call someone a bad word? Are you gonna be arrested?

I believe it's called a hate crime?

[InsaneBoost]

How does the constitution say otherwise because it's offensive. Kind of subjective.

I don't think anyone today calls some a red-skin out of hate. If we were the pig-skins would that be offensive? Or is it the color? red?

Redskins being a privately owned team should have the right to call them selves whatever they want in this free country.

We weren't talking about the Redskins, I was talking about a different subject. I don't find anything wrong with the word Redskin, just like what was the poll, 91% of Native Americans don't either?

[Old Bay]

Hate crimes generally involve actions, not just words.

[Byner21]

It's that dummy Plaschke. Nice of him to do some research on the other side. Journalism, yay!

http://www.latimes.com/sports/la-sp-plaschke18-2009sep18,0,3967721.column

Suzan Shown Harjo makes some really interesting points in this article, but overall I think Plaschke's point is off the mark...that the name 'Redskins', and only that name is offensive.

[InsaneBoost]

Hate crimes generally involve actions, not just words.

That they do, but if I'm running around calling this group of people this, and that group of people that, it's still racially motivated which I'm sure falls under hate crime, though I could be wrong.

[Old Bay]

Suzan Shown Harjo makes some really interesting points in this article, but overall I think Plaschke's point is off the mark...that the name 'Redskins', and only that name is offensive.

I have no issues with her opinion. I wish he would expand on it more if he's going to go with it though. His whole argument is basically her argument. Flesh it out. Having more than the one source gives you a firmer base to stand on.

I know it probably won't mean anything but I e-mailed him and sent him a couple of the articles posted in this thread to broaden his mind.

[Byner21]

I have no issues with her opinion. I wish he would expand on it more if he's going to go with it though. His whole argument is basically her argument. Flesh it out. Having more than the one source gives you a firmer base to stand on.

I know it probably won't mean anything but I e-mailed him and sent him a couple of the articles posted in this thread to broaden his mind.

Good points, and nice work emailing him.

[cphil006]

That they do, but if I'm running around calling this group of people this, and that group of people that, it's still racially motivated which I'm sure falls under hate crime, though I could be wrong.

yes, but there is no crime with that. Maybe just hate.

Red-skin is our team name. Is it derogotory? No, just the name of our team. I think it makes everyone of the 53 players on the roster proud.

[cphil006]

As for the LA TIMES article:

She says, "If you saw a Native American on the street, would you call that person a redskin?"

No, I would not, but maybe if they were painted red or had red clay on them I would...

[cphil006]

I'll post this again in response to the LA Time article. What evidence does the LA Times present? Plascke?

Here's my rebuttal:

For those of you that wonder where the red clay/paint theory came from... I first read of it in the Redskins Media Guide. They suggest it was from Smithsonian Institute. Perhaps they used this reference and study by Nancy Shoemaker in the American Historical Review:

http://www.providencecc.net/faculty/ryanmcilhenny/Shoemaker_Indians%20Got%20Red.pdf

page 625, 626, 628 mentions red paint. page 635 mentions clay and how it was used to make the paint.

Page 632 suggests that when chiefs were painted red it was for war. Painted white for peace.

How accurate anyone's research is always debatable. This seems more solid than anyone's assumptions from thin air. There were many different "Native American" tribes and different ways could have been used to coin the term "red-skin"

offensive? depends on your point of view. Learn the origin and perhaps it'll change your point of view.

[Old Bay]

I emailed him the articles you posted, cphill. Doubt it will do anything, but I sent them.

[fansince62]

My gut feel is that any team name/mascot that is a reference to Native Americans was not intended to be blatantly derogatory. Why would you name a team after something you don't admire to some degree?

Rather, I think that naming a team after Native Americans was thought of kind of along the same lines as naming a team the Bears, Lions, Jaguars, Panthers, Eagles, Bengals, Falcons, Rams, Hawks, Bulls, Bobcats, Timberwolves, Grizzlies, Sharks, etc. It feels like a celebration of the predatory ability of the animals. Basically, you don't want to face them in a fight if you can avoid it. But the key difference here with Native American nicknames is that they are people, not animals.

The name Redskins is also a little bit like Patriots, Pirates, Buccaneers. Maybe it's somewhere in between. While these refer to groups of people, what makes Redskins offensive to me is that Native Americans are an ethnic group of people, and it suggests that they possessed this fighting ability or whatever by virtue of their birth. The other groups, like the Patriots, at least became threatening because they chose to join these groups of people. Basically, you weren't born a Patriot or a Pirate, you decided to become one. And theoretically you could have become any of these things regardless of your ethnic background.

The names Braves, Indians, and Chiefs (to a lesser degree) are also offensive to me for the same reason that the name Redskins is offensive. They reinforce a popular Native American stereotype. But the name Redskins is the one that people really take aim at because it's so blatant. Red-colored skin = fierce warrior. Something like that. The other team names are basically saying the same thing but they don't bang you over the head with it. (Of course, the Chief Wahoo logo adopted by the Indians seemed to speak to an entirely different, playful and non-threatening quality attributed to Native Americans. And people found plenty offensive about that. Let's save that one for another time though.) I think the name Chiefs is a little different. It does seem to reinforce a stereotype, but then again not all Native Americans were Chiefs, so maybe it's okay to pay tribute to the ones that rose to chiefdom.

you do recognize...I hope...the ridiculously convoluted path you have to walk down in deciding whether a word is "acceptable"? this is all nuts. you are actually discussing multiple nuanced factors all to arrive at some ambiguous conclusion about whether its ok to label a professional sports team with one moniker vice another.

NUTS I SAY....NUTS!!!!:doh: