SOW| Native Americans Speaking Out In Support of Redskins Name

[Redskin-All-In]

post deleted

[grego]

Maybe 90% of people don't see it that way, but I think that's because they haven't really stopped or had reason to think about it very much because the stereotypes don't come at their expense.

thats where you would be wrong. you set up your point of view that the name is, in fact, a racial epithet, and essentially said with that sentence 'anyone who disagrees with me does so just because they havent thought about it cuz the name isnt talking about them'.

thats a problem.

the fact that native americans use the name for their own mascot kills the racial epithet argument. at the very least it is proves it is debatable.

personally, i have spent alot of time thinking about this topic, and i have come to the opposite conclusion. in fact, the more i learn, the more i am convinced the team absolutely should not change the name.

i agree that your cleveland indians promote racial sterotypes, but the washington redskins logo? hardly. we dont tomahawk chop like the seminoles do (with the support of the seminole tribe, interestingly enough), and we dont have a logo with exaggerated features like your baseball team. i would suggest researching where the indian head logo on the redskins helmet came from and rethink your position, as an open minded person who appears to want to do what is right.

[2cents]

thats where you would be wrong. you set up your point of view that the name is, in fact, a racial epithet, and essentially said with that sentence 'anyone who disagrees with me does so just because they havent thought about it cuz the name isnt talking about them'.

thats a problem.

the fact that native americans use the name for their own mascot kills the racial epithet argument. at the very least it is proves it is debatable.

personally, i have spent alot of time thinking about this topic, and i have come to the opposite conclusion. in fact, the more i learn, the more i am convinced the team absolutely should not change the name.

i agree that your cleveland indians promote racial sterotypes, but the washington redskins logo? hardly. we dont tomahawk chop like the seminoles do (with the support of the seminole tribe, interestingly enough), and we dont have a logo with exaggerated features like your baseball team. i would suggest researching where the indian head logo on the redskins helmet came from and rethink your position, as an open minded person who appears to want to do what is right.

And if it matters, PC people in North Dakota made the Fighting Sioux at the University change the name. The tribes were upset because they allowed the school to use the name and sealed the deal in a sacred pipe ceremony and were very upset that the name was changed because an agreement in a pipe ceremony is permanant and sacred. Kinda proves the point that people are being PC just to be PC and aren't really concerned with what is really going on.

---------- Post added March-2nd-2013 at 06:34 PM ----------

thats where you would be wrong. you set up your point of view that the name is, in fact, a racial epithet, and essentially said with that sentence 'anyone who disagrees with me does so just because they havent thought about it cuz the name isnt talking about them'.

thats a problem.

the fact that native americans use the name for their own mascot kills the racial epithet argument. at the very least it is proves it is debatable.

personally, i have spent alot of time thinking about this topic, and i have come to the opposite conclusion. in fact, the more i learn, the more i am convinced the team absolutely should not change the name.

i agree that your cleveland indians promote racial sterotypes, but the washington redskins logo? hardly. we dont tomahawk chop like the seminoles do (with the support of the seminole tribe, interestingly enough), and we dont have a logo with exaggerated features like your baseball team. i would suggest researching where the indian head logo on the redskins helmet came from and rethink your position, as an open minded person who appears to want to do what is right.

I pointed out in an earlier post where the logo came from, but have no response as of yet.

[MartinC]

Then you probably didn't consider what I wrote very carefully. Redskin is a racial epithet. Indian kids at my school are sometimes called "redskins" or told to "go back to the res" much the same way that Blacks are called "darkies" or Hispanics are called "beaners." It's the same sort of stereotypical, racist epithet.

The name--and the image--promote the idea of the Indian as something from the past, primitive, and removed from modern society.

Again, I personally want to keep the name for selfish reasons, but there's no getting around the fact that both the name and logo are ethically stereotypical. When it comes down to it, it's indefensible on moral ground.

I appreciate you sharing your experience and views on this.

My thing on this question is context. Words and phrases change over time and with use depending on context. My position is that when someone talks about the Redskins in the context of an NFL game it's not a racial epithet and very very few people are hearing the name or seeing the imagery around the team and linking it in a negative way to modern Native Americans.

If someone walks into a bar in a Indian neighborhood and starts calling people 'Redskins' in that context almost everyone would take offence and agree that the term is being used in a racist way and there would probably be some fists flying. If you walk into the same bar on. Sunday during football season and there are some games on the TVs and you ask 'Whats the Redskins score' I can't imagine anyone in the bar would take offence or consider the question racist.

I'm interested in your take on this?

[PleaseGoForTheWin]

I wholly agree.

p.s. I come from a line of Norwegians who came to this country to work as meat canners, before pursuing their fortune in the California Gold Rush. I similarly find the team names Vikings, Packers, and 49ers as something from the past, primitive, and removed from modern society. I agree with your logic completely, and therefore insist that these names be changed so that my family's heritage is no longer besmirched by the NFL.

:secret: for someone calling out an essay as not being convincing, your posts are, well, unconvincing

The "Indian" who posted on SOW bases his whole argument on the fact that "real" Indians don't care and that "white" Indians are the ones making the stink. He's entitled to his point of view, but he's speaking from a purely personal standpoint.

As to your second point, Packers and 49ers refer to professions or trades, and they aren't tied specifically to a single ethnic group. Nor do their mascots stereotype a still living, thriving culture.

[grego]

And if it matters, PC people in North Dakota made the Fighting Sioux at the University change the name. The tribes were upset because they allowed the school to use the name and sealed the deal in a sacred pipe ceremony and were very upset that the name was changed because an agreement in a pipe ceremony is permanant and sacred. Kinda proves the point that people are being PC just to be PC and aren't really concerned with what is really going on.

---------- Post added March-2nd-2013 at 06:34 PM ----------

I pointed out in an earlier post where the logo came from, but have no response as of yet.

i saw the logo reference after i posted. excellent points.

[skinfan2k]

Real indians don't care about native americans, haha! we are from india. there is no such thing as an american indian

[PleaseGoForTheWin]

thats where you would be wrong. you set up your point of view that the name is, in fact, a racial epithet, and essentially said with that sentence 'anyone who disagrees with me does so just because they havent thought about it cuz the name isnt talking about them'.

thats a problem.

the fact that native americans use the name for their own mascot kills the racial epithet argument. at the very least it is proves it is debatable.

Perhaps. But I have observed how redskin is used in the same way as ******, spic, chink, etc. You certainly wouldn't call someone a redskin as a compliment. So, I'm not sure it's a reach or invalid assumption that the term is a racial epithet, at least in certain contexts and certainly historically. My point about the mass public not considering the ethics is based on the reasoning that the mass public has had no reason to even consider it. Why would middle-class white America have much reason to consider or care about the ethics of a Native American mascot. Look, our attitudes about various issues and in various contexts change. Up until recently, I never thought about where or how my hamburger or souvlaki was sourced, and I don't think automobile manufacturers, for example, really put much thought into fuel efficiency until relative recently. They didn't need to think about it because energy was cheap, the customer valued performance over economy, etc. So, perhaps we've reached a point where we, collectively, are ready to have a discussion about the issue. Indians themselves have a limited voice and have not had much of a voice until recently--for the rest of America, perhaps it was simply an issue of out of sight, out of mind. Perhaps if there was a team created called the Sultry Blondies or something inane women would (justifiably) object to their representation and the ideas that such representation promotes.

Again, I personally am a fan of the name and logo. But it's not my culture that is being used or stereotyped.

---------- Post added March-2nd-2013 at 09:20 PM ----------

I appreciate you sharing your experience and views on this.

My thing on this question is context. Words and phrases change over time and with use depending on context. My position is that when someone talks about the Redskins in the context of an NFL game it's not a racial epithet and very very few people are hearing the name or seeing the imagery around the team and linking it in a negative way to modern Native Americans.

If someone walks into a bar in a Indian neighborhood and starts calling people 'Redskins' in that context almost everyone would take offence and agree that the term is being used in a racist way and there would probably be some fists flying. If you walk into the same bar on. Sunday during football season and there are some games on the TVs and you ask 'Whats the Redskins score' I can't imagine anyone in the bar would take offence or consider the question racist.

I'm interested in your take on this?

I think that everything you've said here is valid, and in fact I do agree with you. But perhaps to others--Indians themselves--the name is a painful reminder of their past and the oversimplified perception many Americans have of them. So, while I do agree with you, I don't think supporters of the name can dismiss the critics simply by saying "words and their meanings change over time."

[2cents]

Perhaps. But I have observed how redskin is used in the same way as ******, spic, chink, etc. You certainly wouldn't call someone a redskin as a compliment. So, I'm not sure it's a reach or invalid assumption that the term is a racial epithet, at least in certain contexts and certainly historically. My point about the mass public not considering the ethics is based on the reasoning that the mass public has had no reason to even consider it. Why would middle-class white America have much reason to consider or care about the ethics of a Native American mascot. Look, our attitudes about various issues and in various contexts change. Up until recently, I never thought about where or how my hamburger or souvlaki was sourced, and I don't think automobile manufacturers, for example, really put much thought into fuel efficiency until relative recently. They didn't need to think about it because energy was cheap, the customer valued performance over economy, etc. So, perhaps we've reached a point where we, collectively, are ready to have a discussion about the issue. Indians themselves have a limited voice and have not had much of a voice until recently--for the rest of America, perhaps it was simply an issue of out of sight, out of mind. Perhaps if there was a team created called the Sultry Blondies or something inane women would (justifiably) object to their representation and the ideas that such representation promotes.

Again, I personally am a fan of the name and logo. But it's not my culture that is being used or stereotyped.

So what is your take on African American people being offended to the point of fighting if called a ****** by a white person, but when a rapper(or sports reporter) talks about niggahs, then its ok? Understand, I'm not being snarky, I'm asking seriously, as this is something that has bugged me for a while.

[PleaseGoForTheWin]

And if it matters, PC people in North Dakota made the Fighting Sioux at the University change the name. The tribes were upset because they allowed the school to use the name and sealed the deal in a sacred pipe ceremony and were very upset that the name was changed because an agreement in a pipe ceremony is permanant and sacred. Kinda proves the point that people are being PC just to be PC and aren't really concerned with what is really going on.

Part of the issue with the Sioux is that the Sioux referred themselves as Lakota (their enemies called them Sioux), and that there is no single Sioux tribe. If I recall correctly, several Sioux tribes supported the university while several others did not, which contributed to the dispute..

[SonnyandSam]

Yes. Keeping the name and Native imagery is a battle not worth fighting IMO. Native leaders have asked us to change. Nobody has been winning on the defensive side of this game. The problem will only get worse before it gets better.

Good. At least I know my sarcasm meter is still working!

[MartinC]

But perhaps to others--Indians themselves--the name is a painful reminder of their past and the oversimplified perception many Americans have of them. So, while I do agree with you, I don't think supporters of the name can dismiss the critics simply by saying "words and their meanings change over time."

But then all the surveys show that only a small minority of the population who MIGHT have reason to be offended actually are. Then you add in the fact that High Schools in Native American areas use the same nickname and it starts becoming hard to sustain the argument you make above.

[grego]

Perhaps. But I have observed how redskin is used in the same way as ******, spic, chink, etc. You certainly wouldn't call someone a redskin as a compliment. So, I'm not sure it's a reach or invalid assumption that the term is a racial epithet, at least in certain contexts and certainly historically. My point about the mass public not considering the ethics is based on the reasoning that the mass public has had no reason to even consider it. Why would middle-class white America have much reason to consider or care about the ethics of a Native American mascot. Look, our attitudes about various issues and in various contexts change. Up until recently, I never thought about where or how my hamburger or souvlaki was sourced, and I don't think automobile manufacturers, for example, really put much thought into fuel efficiency until relative recently. They didn't need to think about it because energy was cheap, the customer valued performance over economy, etc. So, perhaps we've reached a point where we, collectively, are ready to have a discussion about the issue. Indians themselves have a limited voice and have not had much of a voice until recently--for the rest of America, perhaps it was simply an issue of out of sight, out of mind. Perhaps if there was a t"

while i disagree that there is actually any stereotyping going on with the redskins (such as the previously mentioned examples of the seminoles or cleveland indians), this is why i mentioned the origin of the 'stereotypical' redskins helmet logo. it was suggested when the redskins wore the 'R' on their helmet and the president of the congress of american indians wanted an indian on the helmet.

personally, i obsess over issues like this to a fault. for me, its far from out is site, out of mind for me. but i understand for some, it is as you say.

still, the facts, from the logo, to the polls about how native americans feel about the name, to native americans calling their own high school teams 'redskins' do not paint the picture you are painting, which seems to be that they hate the name but are suffering due to their lack of voice.

the facts indicate a small minority who are obsessed with the issue of changing the name, whatever their reasoning, much as the original article represents.

[MartinC]

So what is your take on African American people being offended to the point of fighting if called a ****** by a white person, but when a rapper(or sports reporter) talks about niggahs, then its ok? Understand, I'm not being snarky, I'm asking seriously, as this is something that has bugged me for a while.

It's about context. How where and in what sense a word is used changes it's meaning and the reaction to the word. Our language is constantly evolving and words have multiple meanings and we are very sophisticated in how we translate those meanings.

[2cents]

It's about context. How where and in what sense a word is used changes it's meaning and the reaction to the word. Our language is constantly evolving and words have multiple meanings and we are very sophisticated in how we translate those meanings.

But where do you stop? I have stated in other threads that what do you do when Christians want any team named Devil to change? What about any reference to any kind of people like Vikings? Or criminal elements like Raiders, Buccanneers? It could never end.

[PleaseGoForTheWin]

So what is your take on African American people being offended to the point of fighting if called a ****** by a white person, but when a rapper(or sports reporter) talks about niggahs, then its ok? Understand, I'm not being snarky, I'm asking seriously, as this is something that has bugged me for a while.

I won't address the double-standard you're getting at because I think that's a somewhat different issue. Native Americans don't call each other redskins, at least not that I've observed. Look, I understand that context can change how we evaluate the use of certain words or ideas. I agree entirely that context matters, and I don't think that sports fans mean to use Redskin maliciously. Intent and consequence, however, are not always the same.

Anyway, it's been a good discussion, everyone. I'm not saying that anyone here is wrong or misguided, but I am trying to offer some different perspectives. Again, I assign a paper each term on this topic (though generalized to all Native American mascots and names, not just the Redskins) and have read dozens of websites, op-eds, and blogs on the issue. My hope is that the team will engage in actual dialogue with Native American groups opposed to the name instead of simply stonewalling them, which I believe only adds to the problem.

[MartinC]

But where do you stop? I have stated in other threads that what do you do when Christians want any team named Devil to change? What about any reference to any kind of people like Vikings? Or criminal elements like Raiders, Buccanneers? It could never end.

I think you misunderstand me - I'm not in favor of changing our name. My position is that in the context we use the term it's NOT a racist term in any way. Now you walk into a bar and start calling Native Americans 'Redskins' then that IS a racist term and folks are entitled to take offence. To your example if a middle aged white guy like me calls a black guy the 'N' word he's going to take offence in just about any context unless we are REALLY close friends and its part of some shtick we have. If a black rapper uses the same term taking to one of his posse (get me down with the kids!) then it's received dfferently.

[2cents]

I think you misunderstand me - I'm not in favor of changing our name. My position is that in the context we use the term it's NOT a racist term in any way. Now you walk into a bar and start calling Native Americans 'Redskins' then that IS a racist term and folks are entitled to take offence. To your example if a middle aged white guy like me calls a black guy the 'N' word he's going to take offence in just about any context unless we are REALLY close friends and its part of some shtick we have. If a black rapper uses the same term taking to one of his posse (get me down with the kids!) then it's received dfferently.

To me, offensive is offensive. It shouldn't matter who it comes from. Context doesn't matter because offensive is offensive. That's why I don't think our name is offensive. In my travels, I have had a 100% Apachie Indian invite me to a Native American History month celebration and asked me to wear a Skins' shirt because all his NA friends like the logo and wanted to prove to people that NA are not offended by the term or the logo. Experiences like that make it hard for me to believe that it is offensive.

By the way, I hope you know I am discussing, not arguing. I have a Masters in HR and working on a PhD in HR and have been an equal opportunity advisor at work and it is a subject I enjoy discussing.

[MartinC]

By the way, I hope you know I am discussing, not arguing. I have a Masters in HR and working on a PhD in HR and have been an equal opportunity advisor at work and it is a subject I enjoy discussing.

Likewise - I think this has been a good conversation.

Have to disagree that context does not matter but I have no problem with people taking a different view.

[RFKFedEx]

But where do you stop? I have stated in other threads that what do you do when Christians want any team named Devil to change? What about any reference to any kind of people like Vikings? Or criminal elements like Raiders, Buccanneers? It could never end.

We can look forward to watching those franchises fight their PC battles in the future. :munchout:

In the mean time, we face a real life problem. :doh:

[Destino]

Then you probably didn't consider what I wrote very carefully. Redskin is a racial epithet. Indian kids at my school are sometimes called "redskins" or told to "go back to the res" much the same way that Blacks are called "darkies" or Hispanics are called "beaners." It's the same sort of stereotypical, racist epithet.

I've been reading, on this site, that redskins is not a racial slur and isn't used as one. Yet you're saying that you know that it is. Someone is wrong.

[rd421]

I don't see any fight.

I see the media whining, and I see the Redskins doing nothing.

~Bang

It's because they don't have to. ESPN can try to create all the issues they want and opposers can have rally's etc but there is a reason this "fight" is through the media. There is zero legal leg to stand on forcing the Skins to change and the organization has sweepingly won every court case thus far. They do not have to fight in the media because it will only fuel the fire.

Believe me when I tell you this isn't a fight it's a fabricated circus so full of holes the story is already dying the name will not be changing anytime soon and will only change in the unlikely event that a court makes them and that won't be happening any time soon.

[RFKFedEx]

Believe me when I tell you this isn't a fight it's a fabricated circus.

So the leaders and educators who've encouraged thousands of orgs to drop Native themes over the past 40 years were all just a creation of the free press? Sort of like the Kardashians?

[rd421]

So the leaders and educators who've encouraged thousands of orgs to drop Native themes over the past 40 years were all just a creation of the free press? Sort of like the Kardashians?

I'm not saying people aren't offended I'm simply saying I know for a fact thus isn't a "fight" nothing is changing

[Destino]

I honestly can't possibly disagree with you more. It sounds like Kevin believes that a majority of the Natives who are speaking out (as well as all the other people who have voiced their opinions on the matter) are more than happy to spend time, money and effort in campaigns to get rid of mascots, but do nothing to actually help people on reservations. In fact, if you read into his statements, the resentment IMO comes from that very fact. Some of the hardships in reservations could be avoided if all these people screaming for the name to be changed instead donated $1 to a reservation or urged their congressman to add funding to local reservations, they can do a lot more for their people.

You can disagree but Xero21's position that "Kevin" is worried about people feeling negatively towards Native Americans over these battles of logo's and name is at least partially true. I included these portions from the article in my earlier post:

-angered sports fan who is upset about losing his mascot screams “**** you sand ******” or throws a beer can at us from a passing car screaming “MOTHER******, GO BACK TO YOUR ****ING RESERVATION!!” they scream such obscenities at my father, my cousin, my brother and my family members who look Indian.

- If we twist America’s arm and get America to concede on the trivial items, the country will lose patience with us when we negotiate important A-items.

- That little child who insists on dressing up in a costume and putting on some feathers loves Indians, but when white Indians insult his mom and dad by calling them racists, he grows up to resent those of us who look Indian.

- The vocalizations of these white Indians seem to unite Indian opposition – they find forums and avenues to kindle hatred against Indians and rehash and reiterate negative stereotypes about Indians.

The argument that there are bigger problems is unconvincing. There are very few things out there that are the "biggest problem" so if we followed that logic quite a few things would go entirely ignored. There is plenty of room in the world for all sorts of issues to be discussed.