Destino Posted September 17, 2009 Share Posted September 17, 2009 :applause: Someone gets it. Finally. So you supported flag burning? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedSunday Posted September 17, 2009 Share Posted September 17, 2009 red, what do you think about what i posted above about the red mesa redskins? I don't care but I do get pissed when halfass fans come in here and don't know what in the hell they are talking about.Do those young native Americans know the meaning of the term,kinda how .........the younger generation of Blacks use the N word like candy......they really don't understand the definition of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grego Posted September 17, 2009 Share Posted September 17, 2009 I don't care but I do get pissed when halfass fans come in here and don't know what in the hell they are talking about.Do those young native Americans know the meaning of the term,kinda how .........the younger generation of Blacks use the N word like candy......they really don't understand the definition of it. ok. i was asking because a school that is 99% navajo chose the name 'redskins' as their mascot. how do you feel about that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris0894 Posted September 17, 2009 Share Posted September 17, 2009 just found this posted on another message board. Little history I didn't know and thought i'd share MR HISTORIAN posted......Here's what I know about the selection of the nickname Redskins: The franchise was called the Boston Braves in its first season of existence in 1932. Owner George Preston Marshall chose that nickname to match with the National League baseball team; both teams played at Braves Field. (The NFL was only 12 years old, and it wasn't unusual at the time for a new football team to copy the nickname of the city's existing baseball team, i.e., Brooklyn Dodgers, New York Giants, Pittsburgh Pirates.)Following the 1932 season, Marshall moved his team across town to Fenway Park, home of the American League's Boston Red Sox. He renamed his team the Redskins, pulling the "Red" from Red Sox and using "Skins" to maintain the Native American theme he had with the Braves. It's my undertstanding that Marshall didn't have any racist motives by selecting the nickname Redskins. Around the same time, Marshall hired a new coach in William "Lone Star" Dietz, a part-blooded Native American. Dietz recruited six players from the Haskell Indian School in Kansas, where he'd once played with the great Jim Thorpe. Also, the players got a full makeover before the season-opener, wearing burgundy and gold uniforms and Indian war paint. Marshall was an entertainer at heart, and he wanted his squad to have its own uniqueness. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TD_washingtonredskins Posted September 18, 2009 Share Posted September 18, 2009 Came in here to say exactly that.You're offended? That sucks, get over it. Don't associate yourself with the Redskins. If the government does overstep their boundary, which at this point nothing would surprise me, and actually forces someone to change the name of a product, I think the Washington Americans would be cool to see. Isn't it crazy though, that this is even getting this far. I mean, it's freaking free speech. If Dan Snyder wanted to change the name to the Washington N-Words, by god he should be able to do it. That's America. You can't pick and choose which liberties you want when it is convenient to you. No one can "force" the Redskins to change their name... The issue would be if the Supreme Court removes the trademark. If they do, anyone could merchandise and sell "Redskins" things and that would cost the team a lot of money. That IS what the issue is, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grego Posted September 18, 2009 Share Posted September 18, 2009 I don't care but I do get pissed when halfass fans come in here and don't know what in the hell they are talking about.Do those young native Americans know the meaning of the term,kinda how .........the younger generation of Blacks use the N word like candy......they really don't understand the definition of it. red, i understand what youre saying. i hate hearing young people drop a form of the n bomb like its nothing- hate it. i have to tell you that the first time i heard any complaints about the term redskins, it wasnt all that long ago. and i was pretty surprised. to me, it had always represented brave native americans. not once did it ever cross my mind that it was demeaning. schiz eloquently posted on a point i'd always considered- who in the hell buys a team and names it something demeaning? the answer is nobody. the thing that i've concluded about the term redskin is that it means different things to different people. much like giving a thumbs up to someone in america and doing it in italy or greece or iran is an insult. obviously an american doing it means something quite opposite what another may interpret. i think intent deserves some consideration. it seems that there arent many people who are offended by the term- at least depending on what poll you trust. and not counting non native americans who feel like they should be offended if a few native americans say they are. as i posted about red mesa- they have embraced it in exactly the same way we as fans of the washington redskins have. it cant be ok in their case and racist in ours when the context and intent is clearly identical. its very hard to understand why a small group would try and force the redskins to change their name given these circumstances. i can appreciate that they are offended in that at some point, i can only assume, they associate the term with something demeaning and negative. those people also have to understand that there are others- a vast majority it would seem- who see it in the exact opposite light- including native americans. their interpetation is far from universal. and to hear white folks like UnWise Mike speak as if it is is disrespecting the opinions of those hes trying to not offend. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkfan63 Posted September 18, 2009 Share Posted September 18, 2009 :applause: Someone gets it. Finally. You are kidding, right? :doh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cphil006 Posted September 18, 2009 Share Posted September 18, 2009 You're pushing that face paint / clay argument still? This has been addressed already in this thread.I'm assuming this is the Smithsonian Institute document you are citing: http://anthropology.si.edu/goddard/redskin.pdf Quick bio on the author on page 1 of the doc: "Ives Goddard is Senior Linguist in the Department of Anthropology, National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution." This document does not say anything about the name deriving from clay/paint on the Native Americans' faces. I am looking to see where it has been addressed. Has it been found untrue? I am quoting a Redskins Media Guide, year 2000? That summarizes a Smithsonian Institute research effort earlier. This was mentioned as evidence in the stack of papers Dan Snyder presented to a judge in the earlier trademark trial. They do in fact mention red paint on the bottom of page 3 in the middle column of this article. Perhaps the Redskins are quoting from a different research effort than this article. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cphil006 Posted September 18, 2009 Share Posted September 18, 2009 Actually, the first occurrence of the term "Redskin" in written records appeared in early literature written by an American Indian. And it had nothing to do with war paint. Not sure where the Smithsonian got that.Anyway, I think it would be the same as a Muslim being offended if the team were named the Washington Terrorists and used a Muslim terrorist as its symbol. Even if the team was renamed to the Washington Muslims, but still kept the terrorist symbol, it would still be offensive. Terrorism is a negative term because it describes violence in the wrong sense. Redskins or "whites" or "blacks" do no such thing. Bad analogy. Bottom line is Redskins are a private sector brand name for a company. The government has no right to tell them the have to change their name. They copyrighted it first. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darklight1216 Posted September 18, 2009 Share Posted September 18, 2009 Racist, no. insensitive? yes. But you aren't the type of course since you say they need to grow thicker skin. So true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedSunday Posted September 18, 2009 Share Posted September 18, 2009 red, i understand what youre saying. i hate hearing young people drop a form of the n bomb like its nothing- hate it.i have to tell you that the first time i heard any complaints about the term redskins, it wasnt all that long ago. and i was pretty surprised. to me, it had always represented brave native americans. not once did it ever cross my mind that it was demeaning. . The term doesn't bother me either but I also grew up in the north and am old enough to remember when the N word was used to describe Blacks and in the 50's and 60's noone thought that was bad either.I'm not saying I'm for it but for a bozo to come here and say the term is from face painting.................sorry that's just stupid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cphil006 Posted September 18, 2009 Share Posted September 18, 2009 The term doesn't bother me either but I also grew up in the north and am old enough to remember when the N word was used to describe Blacks and in the 50's and 60's noone thought that was bad either.I'm not saying I'm for it but for a bozo to come here and say the term is from face painting.................sorry that's just stupid. bozo? stupid? How so? Are you serious? You're pretty ignorant if you think I made it up. It's no wonder you have "No New Threads" Whether it ends up being accurate or not I didn't grab that from thin air. It's in a Redskins Media Guide published by the Washington Redskins in 2000s and was used as evidence in the prior trial. Smithsonian Institute research was done. I don't know the status of it. All I did was quote an official Washington Redskins Media/Press Guide. I thought everyone owned one and reads it each night. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aREDSKIN Posted September 18, 2009 Share Posted September 18, 2009 NO jr you don't understand ...the term "Redskin" had nothing to do with what you are saying ....get it!The term comes from a group(soldiers) that use to hunt Indians and SKIN THEM! I don't care but I do get pissed when halfass fans come in here and don't know what in the hell they are talking about.Do those young native Americans know the meaning of the term,kinda how .........the younger generation of Blacks use the N word like candy......they really don't understand the definition of it. Man just read the entire thread here and you'll educate yourself on the REAL meaning of the word Redskin and not the drivel you're peddling. We've heard it all before. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedSunday Posted September 18, 2009 Share Posted September 18, 2009 Whether it ends up being accurate or not . LOL............of course not ,never let facts stand in the way of a good lie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedSunday Posted September 18, 2009 Share Posted September 18, 2009 Man just read the entire thread here and you'll educate yourself on the REAL meaning of the word Redskin and not the drivel you're peddling. We've heard it all before. Not peddling anything ....man! I know the real meaning of the word..........man! I see your reading comprehension is lacking...........man! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drop Posted September 18, 2009 Share Posted September 18, 2009 This is all for attention and money. The 7 Native Americans who constantly bring this up ever few years, can't even get a small percentage of their own people to take up this cause with them. Now who in their right mind thinks that million/billion dollar businesses like the NFL and the Washington Redskins, are going to cater to the interests of a VERY small group of people? And just who are these people to think that these businesses SHOULD cater to them? Furthermore, the term Redskins is not racist. It is not a racial slur. It's what's known as a racial "identifier" or racial "descriptor". There are real slurs for Native Americans, however the term "redskins" isn't one of them. It's use and roots stem from multiple things, but again, racial prejudice isn't one of them, nor is there any proof to backup such a claim. The way this term was used was no different than me calling a black person, "black", in today's world. Now is me calling a black person, "black", racist? Absolutely not. It's a distinct characteristic about someone that i can use to describe them, WITHOUT being prejudice towards them. Nothing more, nothing less. This is something that just needs to die, because honestly, the name, the logo, the likeness....none of it is going anywhere. Beefs with the name "Buffalo Bills" or Cheif Wahoo, the Cleveland Indians mascot, would be taken much more seriously in my opinion, because their are aspects of those names and logos that truely are offensive. I think the Redskins are targeted because they represent DC, the political power of the world, and the place where you go for change. This group who is offended figures if they're going to change something, prove a point, or attempt to make an example out of something, then they're going to go head on and target the political powers of Washington D.C. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedSunday Posted September 18, 2009 Share Posted September 18, 2009 This is all for attention and money. The 7 Native Americans who constantly bring this up ever few years, can't even get a small percentage of their own people to take up this cause with them.Now who in their right mind thinks that million/billion dollar businesses like the NFL and the Washington Redskins, are going to cater to the interests of a VERY small group of people? And just who are these people to think that these businesses SHOULD cater to them? Furthermore, the term Redskins is not racist. It is not a racial slur. It's what's known as a racial "identifier" or racial "descriptor". There are real slurs for Native Americans, however the term "redskins" isn't one of them. It's use and roots stem from multiple things, but again, racial prejudice isn't one of them, nor is there any proof to backup such a claim. The way this term was used was no different than me calling a black person, C. ,,,,,,,,,is this your opinion or do you have a link that states this? .......this says something different. http://thephoenix.com/Boston/Life/75663-Redskin-redux/?rel=inf so does this one... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ethnic_slurs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinsarethebest Posted September 18, 2009 Share Posted September 18, 2009 I believe I read somewhere that the number of American Indians who find the name offensive is very small and that they represent a vast minority of the population. My personal opinion is that, at worst, we may eventually have to replace the Indian-head logo with something else (spear, feathers, etc.) but I'm not even sure that will happen. Actually, I could be mistaken, but apparently the head is considered way less offensive than the name "Redskins" itself, which is viewed as a racial slur. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TD_washingtonredskins Posted September 18, 2009 Share Posted September 18, 2009 Actually, I could be mistaken, but apparently the head is considered way less offensive than the name "Redskins" itself, which is viewed as a racial slur. Could be... I'm still OK (not happy, but OK) with the idea of eventually reverting back to the "Braves" if we absolutely have to. 1) It's the original name of the franchise 2) All logos and colors are still relevant Braves on the Warpath! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aREDSKIN Posted September 18, 2009 Share Posted September 18, 2009 Not peddling anything ....man!I know the real meaning of the word..........man! I see your reading comprehension is lacking...........man! FYI the answer to the question is with this thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cphil006 Posted September 18, 2009 Share Posted September 18, 2009 LOL............of course not ,never let facts stand in the way of a good lie. Never let facts get in teh way of a good lie? Who's lying? Redskins present their "facts" in their Media Guide about the red clay/paint. Are the Redskins lying? I don't know, and neither do you. Is the article that an anthropologist lying? probably not, but is it accurate and widely agreed upon or just his point of view? I don't know and neither do you. All I did was present the "fact" that it was in their media guides. Read yours. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cphil006 Posted September 18, 2009 Share Posted September 18, 2009 ,,,,,,,,,is this your opinion or do you have a link that states this?.......this says something different. http://thephoenix.com/Boston/Life/75663-Redskin-redux/?rel=inf so does this one... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ethnic_slurs you found this on the internet, so it must be true :doh: That was one person's opinion. Do you know what profession has the lowest average SAT scores? Journalists!!!! I'm still confused about the "good lie" you mentioned. Who or whom is lying? Everyone is entitled to their opinion. But, are you accusing someone or a group or a person of "lying"??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fansince62 Posted September 18, 2009 Share Posted September 18, 2009 Could be...I'm still OK (not happy, but OK) with the idea of eventually reverting back to the "Braves" if we absolutely have to. 1) It's the original name of the franchise 2) All logos and colors are still relevant Braves on the Warpath! NEVER! I'm tired of all the language games and the slippery slope to qualifying everyone's intentions. it's time to fight the "righteousness" police and ram it back down their equivocating throats. there has been a slow erosion of civil liberties as one interest group after another pursues its "diversity" agenda. we are creating a society in which it's ok for some segments to employ certain words because of their racial make-up but not others. this is total BS. moreover...the language itself is now a tool used for malevolent purposes (e.g., putting people out of work). not to get to exercised over this...:evilg:....but florida university to all these folks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCMONEY Posted September 18, 2009 Share Posted September 18, 2009 I've been a Skins fan all my life but to be real, it kinda insults my intelligence to say that the name was given to honor native americans. The Skins original owner is a well documented racist. The story that I hear is that the Skins name was given to honor Inidians. I find that hard to believe. The man didn't even want minorities on his team. A person of darker color couldn't eat dinner at his house. Now thats how it was and we move on. Race is still an issue today but we need dialogue and to be forgiving. Some on this forum are just saying "Oh man get over it." I can actually see how some Indians may be offended. Its a touchy situation. The Skins have had their name a long time but just because its been around a long time doens't mean they're right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cphil006 Posted September 18, 2009 Share Posted September 18, 2009 I've been a Skins fan all my life but to be real, it kinda insults my intelligence to say that the name was given to honor native americans. The Skins original owner is a well documented racist. The story that I hear is that the Skins name was given to honor Inidians. I find that hard to believe. The man didn't even want minorities on his team. A person of darker color couldn't eat dinner at his house. Now thats how it was and we move on. Race is still an issue today but we need dialogue and to be forgiving. Some on this forum are just saying "Oh man get over it." I can actually see how some Indians may be offended. Its a touchy situation. The Skins have had their name a long time but just because its been around a long time doens't mean they're right. You know he hired an Indian to be the Head Coach, Lone Star Dietz. He also had several Indian players. He may have been against blacks on the team originally, but eventually he did. Redskins are a private organization and I don't think the Supreme Court has the right to tell them to change their name. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.