ESPN: American Indians look to high court (Merged)

[RedSunday]

Native Americans are brown in complexion, similar to other populations around the world. Dark-skinned south Asians were never described as "red".

I tend to buy the story that "redskin" refers to the red body paint applied by some northeastern tribes.

Then, perhaps it was corrupted by idiots who thought it was a comment on their natural skin tone. Using it out of context as a slur.

But it's unlikely that racism originated the term. Native Americans are simply not red. Xenophobia, you could argue, but not racism.

You are dead wrong!

http://www.bluecorncomics.com/redskins.htm

Main Entry: red·skin

Pronunciation: 'red-"skin

Function: noun

Date: 1699

usually offensive : AMERICAN INDIAN

Merriam-Webster Collegiate Dictionary

redskin

noun [C]

TABOO DATED

a Native American

Cambridge International Dictionary of English

red·skin

n. Offensive Slang

Used as a disparaging term for a Native American.

American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition

[brianm23]

Guys, I'm officially offended and will be suing BiC in the morning.

We can't let this injustice stand.

[RedSunday]

Guys, I'm officially offended and will be suing BiC in the morning.

We can't let this injustice stand.

.....ask Mike Nesmith of the Monkees if he'll give back any money,since his mom inveted the stuff!

[Spear]

You are dead wrong!

http://www.bluecorncomics.com/redskins.htm

Main Entry: red·skin

Pronunciation: 'red-"skin

Function: noun

Date: 1699

usually offensive : AMERICAN INDIAN

Merriam-Webster Collegiate Dictionary

redskin

noun [C]

TABOO DATED

a Native American

Cambridge International Dictionary of English

red·skin

n. Offensive Slang

Used as a disparaging term for a Native American.

American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition

You don't understand my point.

I do not deny that it has been used commonly as a derision. I said it was unlikely that the term originated that way.

Native Americans are BROWN. Reddish hues in human skin tone are solely attributed to blood near the surface, which is more apparent in skin with lower concentrations of melanin (like Europeans). Native Americans have no more blood than any other ethnicity and therefore they can be no more red than any other ethnicity.

The fact that there were native American tribes that would stain their skin red as a part of their culture is the only reasonable explanation for the term.

Of course, when people hear the term without knowing the context, it sounds like a racial slur because skin is the most obvious racial identifier. And so they corrupt it and use it to be hurtful and that's how it winds up in dictionaries. But the term itself is innocuous enough.

It's plain to see that meanings change and mutate over time. Dictionaries are constantly being amended.

But you can't tell me that the use of Redskin as a slur is widespread enough in 2009 to warrant any of this litigation. I feel no sympathy for the few victims who live in the pockets of the country where it still goes on.

Here's a tip: If you're native American and a white guy calls you a redskin, you just have to reply, "Your skin is redder than mine, you pink moron."

I mean, why get offended by something that makes no ****ing sense?

[brianm23]

.....ask Mike Nesmith of the Monkees if he'll give back any money,since his mom inveted the stuff!

I'm referring to "Wite" (aka..white) being in the title.

[ThePreciating]

People mistakenly think they have the constitutional right to not be offended.

I don't think anyone is calling the Washington Redskins hate speech.

[sknsrbck26]

I highly doubt the Supreme Court will even hear the case...Something tells me, they are a little too busy for this, since it has all ready been determined the plaintiffs waited to long. May be a technicality, but it's the law.

[ramsfan09]

I don't think it's offensive but then again I'm not an Indian so what do I know.

Eventually every term to describe a minority is deemed unacceptable. Think about it... for black people there was the N word then negro then colored then black and now finally african american. People are starting to complain about that because not every black person is of african descent (at least in 'recent' genealogical history).

The Redskins could change their name to some Indian alternative that is acceptable right now and in 100 years you can almost guarantee people will be offended by it.

I don't think it's meant to be offensive and I don't think anyone uses it as a racial slur in real life so who cares?

[ForOldDC]

Solution:

If the Supreme Court tries to force us to change our name, we should simply declare FedEx Field a Native American Reservation, thereby rendering ourselves exempt from US law. I'm pretty sure 90,000 Redskins all in one place is more than any actual reservation can claim.

[SJValleySkinz]

Why can nobody be a little objective? I don't want the name to change and I don't think this will in any way right any of the wrongs that have been done to native americans but like it or not the name is offensive and I don't blame them one bit for protesting.

[G.A.C.O.L.B.]

I don't think it's offensive but then again I'm not an Indian so what do I know.

Eventually every term to describe a minority is deemed unacceptable. Think about it... for black people there was the N word then negro then colored then black and now finally african american. People are starting to complain about that because not every black person is of african descent (at least in 'recent' genealogical history).

The Redskins could change their name to some Indian alternative that is acceptable right now and in 100 years you can almost guarantee people will be offended by it.

I don't think it's meant to be offensive and I don't think anyone uses it as a racial slur in real life so who cares?

But see the difference is the history of the term is that it actually was a slur. So it's not "becoming" offensive. It's entire creation was to be offensive.

[Old Bay]

People really should read that article written by the head of the Smithsonian before they continue on with the racist intention b.s.

[grego]

Why can nobody be a little objective? I don't want the name to change and I don't think this will in any way right any of the wrongs that have been done to native americans but like it or not the name is offensive and I don't blame them one bit for protesting.

ok- please read and respond to this....

if a 99% navajo high school in arizona adopts the name 'redskins' as its mascot, can anyone possibly continue arguing that the name is patently offensive?

are you going to tell them to change it??

please respond. i am dying to hear the logic.

[aREDSKIN]

But see the difference is the history of the term is that it actually was a slur. So it's not "becoming" offensive. It's entire creation was to be offensive.

Not only is this demonstrably FALSE the proof of this FALSENESS is in this thread. :doh: :puke:

[ajlaird82]

If its such a problem why not just make us the Washington Warriors

[#1njskinsfan]

was this a major issue with the name in the 80s-90s?

[MartinC]

If its such a problem why not just make us the Washington Warriors

Because we are the Washington Redskins - the name is a part of who and what this team, and we as fans as part of that, are.

Think of this in branding terms (I have a marketing background so excuse me if I wander off into the long grass on this). People often think of a brand as being the logo. So the Redskins 'brand' is the logo on the helmets.

Thats incorrect - the logo, along with the uniforms, the cheerleader outfits, the stadium, the website design etc etc - those are all part of the visual identity of the Redskins. Thats a part of what a brand is, but only a part.

The real brand only exists inside each of our heads. Its what you associate with the team in terms of your contact with everything that makes up your view of what the Washington Redskins are. The first game you saw, the players you love (or hate), the Super Bowl wins, John Riggins 4th and 1, Sonny, Billy, Joey T, Joe Gibbs, Doug Williams and "the Quarter", George Allen, your experience on game day at the stadium, Dan Snyder, the girl in the concession store who sells you a beer ....... and the name.

All of this, together, over time comes together under the name 'Washington Redskins' and is what the team is and means to each and everyone of us. It might be a bit different to each of us as well.

You can change the name - companies do from time to time change the brand name of products but its very rare and very very rare with a brand which is old, successful (commercially at least :doh:) and established. You change the name and you risk breaking the thread which links the past with the present and the future.

The term Redskins may be offensive to some people but not in the context in which we are talking about. In the context of what the term Redskins means in association with our NFL franchise its simply not an offensive term in anyway. To characterise is as such suggests people are either way too sensitive or have way too much time on their hands. Or both.

We are the Washington Redskins.

[wvtbred]

If its such a problem why not just make us the Washington Warriors

I said the same thing back on one of the early pages

[mgargan1]

Because we are the Washington Redskins - the name is a part of who and what this team, and we as fans as part of that, are.

Think of this in branding terms (I have a marketing background so excuse me if I wander off into the long grass on this). People often think of a brand as being the logo. So the Redskins 'brand' is the logo on the helmets.

Thats incorrect - the logo, along with the uniforms, the cheerleader outfits, the stadium, the website design etc etc - those are all part of the visual identity of the Redskins. Thats a part of what a brand is, but only a part.

The real brand only exists inside each of our heads. Its what you associate with the team in terms of your contact with everything that makes up your view of what the Washington Redskins are. The first game you saw, the players you love (or hate), the Super Bowl wins, John Riggins 4th and 1, Sonny, Billy, Joey T, Joe Gibbs, Doug Williams and "the Quarter", George Allen, your experience on game day at the stadium, Dan Snyder, the girl in the concession store who sells you a beer ....... and the name.

All of this, together, over time comes together under the name 'Washington Redskins' and is what the team is and means to each and everyone of us. It might be a bit different to each of us as well.

You can change the name - companies do from time to time change the brand name of products but its very rare and very very rare with a brand which is old, successful (commercially at least :doh:) and established. You change the name and you risk breaking the thread which links the past with the present and the future.

The term Redskins may be offensive to some people but not in the context in which we are talking about. In the context of what the term Redskins means in association with our NFL franchise its simply not an offensive term in anyway. To characterise is as such suggests people are either way too sensitive or have way too much time on their hands. Or both.

We are the Washington Redskins.

Great post, and I agree with your sentiment. I, for one, don't think we should change the name. However; I can not objectively say that these people shouldn't be offended. Can you imagine what would happen if the team's name was the blackface's? There would be a mutiny!

I'm Caucasian, and thus, will never know how it feels to be called the "N-word" or to be called a "redskin", which is a derogatory name. Would I be offended if they named the team, "crakers?" No. But, that's not to say that others wouldn't.

Don't let your beliefs cloud your judgment on what others should think and believe.

Chad Dukes had a great idea. Lets change the colors of the team to Red, White, and Blue... (like the caps)... and call ourselves the Washington Americans. Then we can play, "Proud to be an American" at the beginning of the game.

[DonMagicJuan]

i think they put a curse on us...

and as for a name change, if WE did change our name, i wouldnt mind the Warriors....Red, White and Blue jersey's....but then again, we'll look like the pro bowl jersey's and stuff...

how bout we stay burgundy and gold and just change the name....Redskins is offensive according to the definition....no way aroudn that....

it would be so weird if we changed our name...

[wvtbred]

i think they put a curse on us...

and as for a name change, if WE did change our name, i wouldnt mind the Warriors....Red, White and Blue jersey's....but then again, we'll look like the pro bowl jersey's and stuff...

how bout we stay burgundy and gold and just change the name....Redskins is offensive according to the definition....no way aroudn that....

it would be so weird if we changed our name...

No change except for the name if anything at all

[tshile]

It doesn't matter if you think its offensive or not, or if you sympathize with those who think its offensive or not.

the redskins are a private business.

the supreme court has no business telling private businesses what they can use for names.

if the name was offensive, and people cared, then people wouldn't buy the product, and the company would suffer and/or be forced to change their name to make money.

but thats not the case - enough people do not find it offensive and the product is able to be profitable. its not the supreme courts place to get involved in the name of a product or business in the private sector.

so, offensive or not - this is not going to work.

the only way you get them to change their name is to stop buying their product, and make it known the reason why you are stopping.

[mgargan1]

It doesn't matter if you think its offensive or not, or if you sympathize with those who think its offensive or not.

the redskins are a private business.

the supreme court has no business telling private businesses what they can use for names.

if the name was offensive, and people cared, then people wouldn't buy the product, and the company would suffer and/or be forced to change their name to make money.

but thats not the case - enough people do not find it offensive and the product is able to be profitable. its not the supreme courts place to get involved in the name of a product or business in the private sector.

so, offensive or not - this is not going to work.

the only way you get them to change their name is to stop buying their product, and make it known the reason why you are stopping.

They're challenging the redskins trademark, not the company. If they didn't trademark it, then you'd have a valid point.

[NavyDave]

Great post, and I agree with your sentiment. I, for one, don't think we should change the name. However; I can not objectively say that these people shouldn't be offended. Can you imagine what would happen if the team's name was the blackface's? There would be a mutiny!

I'm Caucasian, and thus, will never know how it feels to be called the "N-word" or to be called a "redskin", which is a derogatory name. Would I be offended if they named the team, "crakers?" No. But, that's not to say that others wouldn't.

Don't let your beliefs cloud your judgment on what others should think and believe.

Chad Dukes had a great idea. Lets change the colors of the team to Red, White, and Blue... (like the caps)... and call ourselves the Washington Americans. Then we can play, "Proud to be an American" at the beginning of the game.

I'll still wear Redskins jerseys and refer to the team as the Redskins just as I refer to the basketball team as the Bullets. Someone posted a photoshopped version of the wizards logo with the word Grand next to the new name when it first came out which had me LMAO when I found out the guy was a lifelong Bullets fan and of color.

[Byner21]

It doesn't matter if you think its offensive or not, or if you sympathize with those who think its offensive or not.

the redskins are a private business.

the supreme court has no business telling private businesses what they can use for names.

The relationship between the NFL and the government is more complicated than a typical business. The NFL, NBA, and MLB (don't know about other pro leagues) have antitrust exemptions from the U.S. government. I would think these exemptions impact the discussion.