Bang Posted February 7, 2013 Share Posted February 7, 2013 I'm fortunate to attend a few road games every year. On road weekends I'll befriend dozens of fans at bars, tailgates, stadiums etc. Somebody always seems to bring up the name issue, and its not me. People seek my opinion, or they'll express their own. This is not just drunk fools who are in S talking mode, I'm much thicker skinned than that. It's usually friendly conversation. I've known many Dallas fans, especially on the East side of DC who love to bring up George Preston Marshall's ills. I'm tired of dealing with that issue too. I can't change the past, but I feel like the franchise I love needs a karmic cleansing going forward. How many are native Americans? curious.. i mean if anecdotal "people always talk to me about it" is going to be evidence, then who you're talking to is rather important. Are they white folks telling you they find it offensive? Black people? Women? Elderly people? How many of them say to you that it's a non issue, and how many of them are adamant that it's a problem, and what is their racial makeup? As far as karma goes,, the team didn't do anything to anyone. George Preston Marshall is dead. This team's racist history ended in 1966. Projecting offense when the 'offended' party isn't offended is a primary problem with 'political correctness". ~Bang Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rictus58 Posted February 7, 2013 Share Posted February 7, 2013 This team's racist history ended in 1966.~Bang then how do you explain our lack of african american kickers?! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tweedr01 Posted February 7, 2013 Share Posted February 7, 2013 So you're telling me that "Redskin" doesn't refer to the red dot that some Indian people wear on their forehead?http://www.hindustantimes.com/Images/2012/11/84da7fe6-8a07-4b1d-9b1a-8be713d335d1MediumRes.JPG lol, dangit, i knew my wife lied to me! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rebornempowered Posted February 7, 2013 Share Posted February 7, 2013 Depends on where you are. In Cleveland they probably hear it all the time.~Bang I lived an hour from Cleveland for 8 years. I watched Cleveland news, Fox Sports Ohio, and listened to Cleveland sports talk radio the entire time I lived there. The only team I embraced while living there was the Indians because I found myself watching them all the time. I never ONCE heard the issue brought up. From that experience I feel that the reason the Redskins name is controversial and frequently brought up is because of the size of the TV market and the fact that the team is in a place of great political importance and power. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tweedr01 Posted February 7, 2013 Share Posted February 7, 2013 If I disliked the team, why would I push for change? because you dislike the team? i'm not sure how that answer isn't obvious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrypticVillain Posted February 7, 2013 Share Posted February 7, 2013 then how do you explain our lack of african american kickers?! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tweedr01 Posted February 7, 2013 Share Posted February 7, 2013 This is where I make my Chris Rock analogy. CR can drop N bombs and we love it, but if Jay Leno tried the same we'd be outraged. the fail....it is soooo strong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bang Posted February 7, 2013 Share Posted February 7, 2013 then how do you explain our lack of african american kickers?! Danny Smith. ~Bang ---------- Post added February-7th-2013 at 08:06 PM ---------- I lived an hour from Cleveland for 8 years. I watched Cleveland news, Fox Sports Ohio, and listened to Cleveland sports talk radio the entire time I lived there. The only team I embraced while living there was the Indians because I found myself watching them all the time. I never ONCE heard the issue brought up.From that experience I feel that the reason the Redskins name is controversial and frequently brought up is because of the size of the TV market and the fact that the team is in a place of great political importance and power. That's interesting. Oh well, more fuel to the fire. Nationally i know the Indians mascot has been batted around. ~Bang Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted February 7, 2013 Share Posted February 7, 2013 I'd like to make a recommendation to the Forum Rules committee that anyone posting threads in on this topic receive an immediate ban. I'm certainly not telling the Mods what to do, just making a recommendation for a possible rules update. It should also be rule #1 so that there would be no excuse for missing it. Just thoughts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted February 7, 2013 Share Posted February 7, 2013 From what I understand, there have been several surveys (including those posted in this thread) of American Indians that state the name is only offensive to a small group. By and large, the people it's supposed to offend aren't offended. Please remind me: what's the problem? If the people the name is supposed to offend aren't offended, then what's the problem? Same with the logo. I've always thought it was stoic and proud, not cartoonish like Chief Wahoo (Cleveland Indian's logo). As a matter of fact, I think it's based off of the reverse side of the buffalo head nickel. It is, and I have several of those nickels for precisely that reason. But really, no one is complaining about the logo, or the colors, or the general Native American imagery. The problem is the anachronistic word "Redskin." Nothing else. And I have been a Redskins fan living away from DC for the past three decades, and yes, the name does come up in conversation, and yes, many people feel that particular word is insensitive at best. Football fans as well as regular civilians. Don't kid yourself. We are looked down upon because of that word, and our automatic defensiveness and refusal to consider the issue in order to prove we are not "PC" doesn't seem like much of a badge of honor from their perspective. :whoknows: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tweedr01 Posted February 7, 2013 Share Posted February 7, 2013 Didn't you just say you weren't playing? Dude, you are only 31, I'm only 28, our opinions don't matter. I mean, he's 50, he's got gray hairs that have been fans longer than we've been alive. /sarcasm ---------- Post added February-7th-2013 at 03:09 PM ---------- Yep. I was using your post as a perfect example of why I'm not playing. You don't want to consider the issue objectively. You want to fight against the "PC elitists" because we can't let "them" win. I'm completely torn on the issue myself, but I always find myself arguing the other side on here because it doesn't get a fair hearing unless some of us do that. And as a result, I end up with everyone screaming at me. So that's why I'm not going to play. And yes, I realize that I could have just kept quiet from the start. Sorry. I'm pretty sure he was being semi-sarcastic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted February 7, 2013 Share Posted February 7, 2013 I lived an hour from Cleveland for 8 years. I watched Cleveland news, Fox Sports Ohio, and listened to Cleveland sports talk radio the entire time I lived there. The only team I embraced while living there was the Indians because I found myself watching them all the time. I never ONCE heard the issue brought up.From that experience I feel that the reason the Redskins name is controversial and frequently brought up is because of the size of the TV market and the fact that the team is in a place of great political importance and power. Of course they aren't going to bring it up in Cleveland. The Indians' cartoony logo is horrific - the are in no position to talk. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beygo Posted February 7, 2013 Share Posted February 7, 2013 I just read the article. It's pretty bad. He lists some organizations who are opposed to the name because it is a offensive, then describes how his sister from Minneapolis came to a game and saw the band wearing head dresses. "Oh my god! they have head dresses on, my eyes are burning! I'm soo offended." (I embelished that quote, of course) There is not much substance in the article in my opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tweedr01 Posted February 7, 2013 Share Posted February 7, 2013 No. It doesn't. And I'm not doing your research paper for you. But you are wrong. wow, no, no he isn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted February 7, 2013 Share Posted February 7, 2013 I'm pretty sure he was being semi-sarcastic. There are at least 10 posters in this thread who are waving around the "political correctness is killing us we have to take a stand" banner. He's just one of them. Is this really where we need to take a stand? Our god given right to call our team the Redskins? I just don't get it. Is this the hill to die on to save the world from runaway sensitivity to other people's feelings? And for the record, I mention how long I have been a proud fan of this team to demonstrate that I'm not coming to this question from the outside. I'm a huge Redskins fan and will be for life - even if the name gets changed to something less controversial. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RFKFedEx Posted February 7, 2013 Author Share Posted February 7, 2013 But really, no one is complaining about the logo, or the general Native American imagery. The problem is the anachronistic word "Redskin." Nothing else. I disagree. And I have been a Redskins fan living away from DC for the past three decades, and yes, the name does come up in conversation, and yes, many people feel that particular word is insensitive at best. Football fans as well as regular civilians. Don't kid yourself. We are looked down upon because of that word, and our automatic defensiveness and refusal to consider the issue in order to prove we are not "PC" doesn't seem like much of a badge of honor from their perspective. :whoknows: Thank you for shedding light from outside of our B&G world. :cool: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bang Posted February 7, 2013 Share Posted February 7, 2013 There are at least 10 posters in this thread who are waving around the "political correctness is killing us we have to take a stand" banner. He's just one of them. Is this really where we need to take a stand? Our god given right to call our team the Redskins? I just don't get it. Is this the hill to die on to save the world from runaway sensitivity to other people's feelings? And for the record, I mention how long I have been a proud fan of this team to demonstrate that I'm not coming to this question from the outside. I'm a huge Redskins fan and will be for life - even if the name gets changed to something less controversial. Not really.. but if the people in question aren't offended, then how is it correct to change the name? This is why I feel this way. if they did want to changed, no skin off my nose.. but they don't. So why press it? It's almost as if these folks feel they're still a bit too savage to understand why they should be offended... ~Bang Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Evil Genius Posted February 7, 2013 Share Posted February 7, 2013 The biggest threat really isn't changing the name...it's the *******s who claim they'll no longer follow the team if and when the name is changed. It's going to happen. It just might be a little longer than it probably should have been. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted February 7, 2013 Share Posted February 7, 2013 Is this really where we need to take a stand? Our god given right to call our team the Redskins? I just don't get it. Is this the hill to die on to save the world from runaway sensitivity to other people's feelings? And for the record, I mention how long I have been a proud fan of this team to demonstrate that I'm not coming to this question from the outside. I'm a huge Redskins fan and will be for life - even if the name gets changed to something less controversial. The question for me is larger than that, who gets to decide what is or isn't offensive? Is Seminoles offensive? Not according to the Seminole nation. But there was a line of complaints about the use of the name by Florida State Univ. Is Redskins offensive? Not according to the Navajo of Red Mesa, Arizona. By what authority does an group have to dictate what is or isn't offensive? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted February 7, 2013 Share Posted February 7, 2013 You might want to check the history of the word with the OED. He cited a source and you are telling him he is wrong while bringing nothing to the table. Absurdly weak stuff here. Bs he didn't cite anything I am not in class to reference my paper but I have a source. wow, no, no he isn't. For whatever it's worth, here is what the Oxford English Dictionary Online says: redskin, n. View as: Outline |Full entryQuotations: Show all |Hide all Pronunciation: Brit. /ˈrɛdskɪn/ , U.S. /ˈrɛdˌskɪn/ Forms: also with capital initial. Etymology: < red adj. + skin n. In sense 1 after Mississippi Valley French Peau Rouge (c... (Show More) Thesaurus » Categories » 1. An American Indian. Now somewhat dated and freq. considered offensive. Early quots. are in the speech of American Indians. c1769 tr. Mosquito in Papers Sir W. Johnson (1931) VII. 137, I shall be pleased to have you come to speak to me yourself if you pity our women and our children; and, if any redskins [Fr. quelques peaux Rouges] do you harm, I shall be able to look out for you even at the peril of my life. 1812 French Crow in J. C. A. Stagg et al. Papers J. Madison Presidential Ser. (2004) V. 182, I am a red-skin, but what I say is the truth. 1815 Black Thunder in Niles' Weekly Reg. 14 Oct. 113, I turn to all, red skins and white skins, and challenge an accusation against me. 1823 J. F. Cooper Pioneers ii. xvii. 256 There will soon be no red-skin in the country. 1872 W. H. Dixon W. Penn (rev. ed.) xxiii. 205 A strong believer in the native virtues of the Redskins, when these savages were treated well. 1890 Times 27 Dec. 3/2 After dark the whole band..renewed the attack, Kicking Bear himself leading the redskins. 1922 J. Joyce Ulysses ii. 316 The Times rubbed its hands and told the whitelivered Saxons there would soon be as few Irish in Ireland as redskins in America. a1939 Z. Grey Black Mesa (1955) iii. 64 Say, my redskin beauty, don't talk Mexican to me. 1968 Manch. Guardian Weekly 17 Oct. 19 The drop-outs have copped out, the redskins have bitten the dust, the way-outs have faced the nitty-gritty (truth). 2006 Word July 121/1 Ethan wants to rescue his little girl from the clutches of a dirty no-good redskin. http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/160483?redirectedFrom=Redskin#eid Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsHokieFan Posted February 7, 2013 Share Posted February 7, 2013 It is no longer an "emotional" issue for me. I have researched the hell out of this thing, the damn entomology of the word Redskin and I am just tired of the whole debate and issue now. Change the name to a 2 syllabal word (such as Spartans) so that you replace "Redskins" with "whatever" in Hail to the Redskins, keep the colors and move on FYI if anyone is curious to read about Goddard's Research http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/02/AR2005100201139.html A Linguist's Alternative History of 'Redskin'For many Americans, both Indian and otherwise, the term "redskin" is a grotesque pejorative, a word that for centuries has been used to disparage and humiliate an entire people, but an exhaustive new study released today makes the case that it did not begin as an insult. Smithsonian Institution senior linguist Ives Goddard spent seven months researching its history and concluded that "redskin" was first used by Native Americans in the 18th century to distinguish themselves from the white "other" encroaching on their lands and culture. When it first appeared as an English expression in the early 1800s, "it came in the most respectful context and at the highest level," Goddard said in an interview. "These are white people and Indians talking together, with the white people trying to ingratiate themselves." It was not until July 22, 1815, that "red skin" first appeared in print, he found -- in a news story in the Missouri Gazette on talks between Midwestern Indian tribes and envoys sent by President James Madison to negotiate treaties after the War of 1812. The envoys had rebuked the tribes for their reluctance to yield territory claimed by the United States, but the Gazette report suggested that Meskwaki chief Black Thunder was unimpressed: "Restrain your feelings and hear calmly what I say," he told the envoys. "I have never injured you, and innocence can feel no fear. I turn to all red skins and white skins, and challenge an accusation against me." Link to rest Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted February 7, 2013 Share Posted February 7, 2013 For whatever it's worth, here is what the Oxford English Dictionary Online says:http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/160483?redirectedFrom=Redskin#eid Well, send that definition to the Navajo at Red Mesa. I bet they didn't know they were calling themselves the N-word all these years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted February 7, 2013 Share Posted February 7, 2013 Not really.. but if the people in question aren't offended, then how is it correct to change the name?This is why I feel this way. if they did want to changed, no skin off my nose.. but they don't. So why press it? It's almost as if these folks feel they're still a bit too savage to understand why they should be offended... ~Bang There's a lot of Native American people out there. Perhaps only some of them are offended, but some are. It may not be fair to turn the question around, but if it's really no skin off your nose whether or not the name gets changed, why do you always jump right in to vociferously defend the name in every one of these threads, and make fun of posters who question whether it is a good idea? People on here act like you can't be a true fan of the team if you think that the word Redskin might be outmoded and insensitive. You are suddenly a traitor or something. We need to go to the bunkers over this! I don't get it. Actually, I do get it, but it is frustrating. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morning Wood Posted February 7, 2013 Share Posted February 7, 2013 Change it to the "Washington Whities", and make the logo look like Mr. Rogers. Then everybody can stfu already. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted February 7, 2013 Share Posted February 7, 2013 Well, send that definition to the Navajo at Red Mesa. I bet they didn't know they were calling themselves the N-word all these years. Well, now we are back to the Chris Rock use of the n-word as opposed to the Mel Gibson use of the n-word. :whoknows: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.