Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

The Official ES All Things Redskins Name Change Thread (Reboot Edition---Read New OP)


Recommended Posts

The polls show that 90% of Native Americans don't take issue with the name. So who is right, them, or you?

 

It doesn't matter what category you place redskins in, what matters is the opinion of the group that is claimed to be taking offense. In this case, Native Americans by and large, 90%, are not offended by the name. So your placement of the term in offensive ranking is wrong.

I'd be willing to wager that the 90% who don't take issue are taking pride in the fact that their heritage is still recognized.  We've done a lot to destroy the true history of this great Nation.  Let's NOT pile on.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Bingo. I'd venture that many of the plaintiffs in this suit have never had someone call them a Redskin to their face. 

 

Ok, these are my general thoughts on the topic, which is not directed at you big#44, but the discussion your comment and Bang's comment brings up.

 

I would say the plaintiffs haven't (or may not have) been called that because it would be offensive. Never have I seen anyone dare call a native american a "redskin" to their face. It appears to be some form of taboo...white people and the rest of the majority in the U.S. can use the term broadly but not in addressing an individual. In what manner is "redskin" used in one-on-one conversation with a native american?

 

A hypothetical situation. You are walking your child along and meet a native american...would you point and say "look Johnny, a redskin". Would you not be embarrased for saying that? Ashamed for not giving a more accurate description than what was slang from the early 1900's? Is there pride and heritage in that?

 

What seems to be forgotten is that most racist terms, names, and slurs that are derogatory do target and offend minorities. I see no difference in this situation.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

So, your point(s) is (are)

1). Well, nobody calls individual Natives "redskin", to their face. But you're certain that "white people and the rest of the majority in the U.S" use that term to refer to Natives, as a group, behind their backs.

I will speculate that you appear to be roughly as ignorant of what "white people and the rest of the majority in the U.S" do when the redskins aren't around, as you are of the other facts which have been posted in this thread.

2a). Racist slurs offend minorities.

2b). I have decided that "Washington Redskins" is a racist slur.

2c). "Washington Redskins" does not offend minorities.

2d). This forces me to conclude that one of the above three statements is wrong.

2e). I have decided to continue to cling to item 2b, my personal opinion, and to conclude that 2c, the opinions of people saying that they are not offended, must be wrong.

In short, when confronted by the fact that your opinion about whether somebody us offended, differs with the opinion of the person himself, who says he isn't offended, that YOUR opinion on whether he's offended is more important than HIS opinion on whether he's offended.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

So, your point(s) is (are)

1). Well, nobody calls individual Natives "redskin", to their face. But you're certain that "white people and the rest of the majority in the U.S" use that term to refer to Natives, as a group, behind their backs.

I will speculate that you appear to be roughly as ignorant of what "white people and the rest of the majority in the U.S" do when the redskins aren't around, as you are of the other facts which have been posted in this thread.

2a). Racist slurs offend minorities.

2b). I have decided that "Washington Redskins" is a racist slur.

2c). "Washington Redskins" does not offend minorities.

2d). This forces me to conclude that one of the above three statements is wrong.

2e). I have decided to continue to cling to item 2b, my personal opinion, and to conclude that 2c, the opinions of people saying that they are not offended, must be wrong.

In short, when confronted by the fact that your opinion about whether somebody us offended, differs with the opinion of the person himself, who says he isn't offended, that YOUR opinion on whether he's offended is more important than HIS opinion on whether he's offended.

Oh Larry, with a touch of condescension :)

 

Relax and hold on a second lol. At no point did I say "behind their backs", but if it helps your argumentative state, that's fine. You are overlooking the use of the name as it is now. There is nothing ignorant about it, the use of the name is overt...there is no secret here. A billion dollar sport franchise uses a nickname and cartoon caricature to represent a once strong, native culture that has been wiped out by the present majority (in often violent methods). A better name couldn't have, or can't be, used?

 

How has the name "redskin" been used outside of referencing the NFL franchise in the last 10, 20, 30 years? It's difficult to find an instance in television, radio, or in personal communication where that name has been used. I have never heard it.

 

Regarding being offended, even if it's a minority that is unhappy, doesn't that justify action and change? Is that not what happens today in the age of being politically correct? Why stop it at a sports team nickname? Is it becuase only a minority of a minority disagrees with the use of the name?

Edited by Metalhead
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Except no one calls anyone a "redskin".

 

doesn't a slur at least have to be used to be considered a slur?

 

If no one says it, why is it considered?

 

~Bang

 

 

As I've argued the only contex the term "Redskin(s) is used is with the football team. NOTHING ELSE. It's just not a perjaorative. And those trying to make it so can't make a cogent argument for doing so.

Link to post
Share on other sites

What?

But I think I feel ya.

I love that my hubby has finally taken interest (only because now it's a congressional issue, lmao). There are many more things to be offended by, imo, like homelessness & hunger. Let's knock those out before we find other things, like sporting names, offensive.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh Larry, with a touch of condescension :)

.

Only a touch? Guess I must have been too subtle.

<<Relax and hold on a second lol. At no point did I say "behind their backs", but if it helps your argumentative state, that's fine.>>

I'm well aware you didn't use those words. That's why I didn't put quotation marks around them.

What'd you DID say was "white people and the rest of the majority in the U.S. can use the term broadly but not in addressing an individual."

You know. You said that white folks don't call natives that to their faces, but that they do call them that __________. (Insert a phrase used to distinguish from using a term in somebody's presence).

<<You are overlooking the use of the name as it is now.>>

Uh, no, that would be you.

While back, I did a non-scientific survey, to see how the word is used now. I did a Google search on the word "redskin". (I intentionally did not search for the plural, because I felt that might skew the results towards finding the football team). And I looked at what the first 100 hits took me to.

Just going from memory, something like 85 of the first 100, were references to a professional football team. Another 8 or so were other proper names. (An elementary school, a bowling alley). Around 5 were to news stories about the name of the football team. Three were to Wiki or dictionary pages, about the word.

NOT ONE was to a racial slur.

<<There is nothing ignorant about it, the use of the name is overt...there is no secret here. >>

Really? The word is OVERTLY used as a racial slur?

Why, I bet that it would take you less than a minute to find a place where someone is OVERTLY using it as a racial slur, then, wouldn't it?

Not a place where some idjit is CLAIMING that OTHER PEOPLE use it as a racial slur. Some place where somebody I actually using the word, in the way that you claim I'm overlooking.

<<How has the name "redskin" been used outside of referencing the NFL franchise in the last 10, 20, 30 years? It's difficult to find an instance in television, radio, or in personal communication where that name has been used. I have never heard it.>>

Congratulations. You just made MY point.

Regarding being offended, even if it's a minority that is unhappy, doesn't that justify action and change? Is that not what happens today in the age of being politically correct? Why stop it at a sports team nickname? Is it becuase only a minority of a minority disagrees with the use of the name?

Uh, pointing out that forcing people to ignore reality because a tiny portion of a tiny minority CLAIM to be offended, is the definition of political correctness, isn't exactly helping your case. (Any more than trying to argue that "nobody uses that word as a racial slur, therefore every time it's used, it's a racial slur" is).

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

You might highly doubt it, but it's what they say when they're asked.

 

Does that count for anything?

 

~Bang

Of course it doesn't count, it would mean he was wrong. And obviously, the need to be the winner of the argument far outweighs whether he's right or not.....obviously....

Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh Larry, with a touch of condescension :)

 

How has the name "redskin" been used outside of referencing the NFL franchise in the last 10, 20, 30 years? It's difficult to find an instance in television, radio, or in personal communication where that name has been used. I have never heard it.

 

Regarding being offended, even if it's a minority that is unhappy, doesn't that justify action and change? Is that not what happens today in the age of being politically correct? Why stop it at a sports team nickname? Is it becuase only a minority of a minority disagrees with the use of the name?

Are you a fan of this team? A newbie maybe, no one who truly loves this team wants a change. No one. Our owner is a life-long fan of this team and is proud enough to say NEVER.

edit**I tried to make "this team" in italics and it didn't work.

Edited by skinsmarydu
Link to post
Share on other sites

elkabong82 said: "Braves on a warpath, and all the battle/war connections in football and other sports shows that team names connect to a warrior class, not a group of people as they exist today".

 

 

Would you be willing to tell a Native that their "warrior class" no longer exists?

Edited by RFKFedEx
Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, these are my general thoughts on the topic, which is not directed at you big#44, but the discussion your comment and Bang's comment brings up.

 

I would say the plaintiffs haven't (or may not have) been called that because it would be offensive. Never have I seen anyone dare call a native american a "redskin" to their face. It appears to be some form of taboo...white people and the rest of the majority in the U.S. can use the term broadly but not in addressing an individual. In what manner is "redskin" used in one-on-one conversation with a native american?

 

A hypothetical situation. You are walking your child along and meet a native american...would you point and say "look Johnny, a redskin". Would you not be embarrased for saying that? Ashamed for not giving a more accurate description than what was slang from the early 1900's? Is there pride and heritage in that?

 

What seems to be forgotten is that most racist terms, names, and slurs that are derogatory do target and offend minorities. I see no difference in this situation.

I've been around plenty of racist people (friends, family, etc) and I've never heard one of them ever use the term Redskin to describe a Native Amercian.  Fact is, no one dares to go up to a NA and call them a Redskin because NOBODY uses that word anymore except when referring to our football team.  The N word is always compared to Redskin, but the N word is still used a lot.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've already lost one team nickname, I don't want to lose another.

 

It's been talked about on sports radio here in Charlotte.  A lot of callers keep saying, "you root for the team, not the nickname."  Well two thoughts about that:

 

1) The nickname IS part of the identity of the team and the nickname is what separates itself from other teams from the same city and give it that uniqness.

 

2) It's easy for people to say that when it's not their team that is changing or want to change the nickname.

 

People here in Charlotte are getting their Hornets back.  I'd love to get my Bullets back.  I dumped all my Wizards gear and only have the Bullets jerseys and pennants in my man cave.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Watching an episode of Rawhide on AMC this morning,  Hollywood has a blond haired, blue eyed white woman playing a NA.  They have her speaking English like she's disabled, instead of a NA not being fluent in English.  They make her sound stupid.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Watching an episode of Rawhide on AMC this morning,  Hollywood has a blond haired, blue eyed white woman playing a NA.  They have her speaking English like she's disabled, instead of a NA not being fluent in English.  They make her sound stupid.

Let's pause to laugh and talk about real stupid instead of mostly nonsense stupid ****. I take you all the way back to the primitive and uninformed days of 1968.

 

Movie: White Comanche (IMDB)
 
William Shatner plays two roles: cowboy Johnny Moon and his ruthless Indian twin brother, Notah. Notah likes peyote and gets the crazy idea that he's the Comanche messiah sent to lead the Comanche nation against the white man but more specifically the dusty desert town of Rio Hondo. Moon, estranged from his brother, decides to stop Notah either by words or by bullets.

 

 

whitecomanche_zps627cd08f.jpg

 

 

 

Now that's offensive!

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

elkabong82 said: "Braves on a warpath, and all the battle/war connections in football and other sports shows that team names connect to a warrior class, not a group of people as they exist today".

 

 

Would you be willing to tell a Native that their "warrior class" no longer exists?

 

I would say it doesn't exist in the manner that teams refer to and that there are those among them that could be considered warriors in  a synonomous way to patriot.

 

My post clearly finished with "not a group of people AS they exist today," which signifies change, NOT disappearance. Maybe you should start trying to understand the whole of facts being presented to you throughout this thread instead of continuing this game of yours where you try to play "gotcha" by focusing on a snippet of the fact and ignoring the context in which it is placed.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been around plenty of racist people (friends, family, etc) and I've never heard one of them ever use the term Redskin to describe a Native Amercian.  Fact is, no one dares to go up to a NA and call them a Redskin because NOBODY uses that word anymore except when referring to our football team.  The N word is always compared to Redskin, but the N word is still used a lot.

 

Nobody would go up to a NA and call them a brave, a chief (unless they held the title), a warrior, etc. either. Would you go up to an African American and say "hey black?" No way. You also wouldn't go up to a white person and say "hey white." However, both are referred to by skin color as descriptors at times and neither group by and large has a big issue with their group being referred to in such a way, but individually such a reference doesn't make sense/work in conversation. You'd simply say "hey you."

Link to post
Share on other sites

Jumbo, i could kiss you for that clip. 
Somehow I have never seen this movie, and now i have a quest.

 

Holy crap that looks awful   :lol:

 

 

In the old days of Hollywood, most of the time they'd use Italian, Jewish and Hispanic actors to play NA characters... even extras in background shots.  Very very rarely did they ever use any actual Natives.

They probably spent more on makeup trying to make them darker than they ever would have spent hiring NA extras.

 

~Bang

Edited by Bang
Link to post
Share on other sites

. A billion dollar sport franchise uses a nickname and cartoon caricature to represent a once strong, native culture

A cartoon caricature? Cleveland Indians, yes. Washington redskins, no.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

A cartoon caricature? Cleveland Indians, yes. Washington redskins, no.

 

You'd have to ignore the fact that some native Americans petitioned the Redskins to change the helmet to the head logo over the R, which one would know simply by reading the thread and understanding the facts before forming an opinion.

 

The facts are there and it boils down to this: if 90% are not offended, but 10% are, is that a large enough percentage to overturn the 90%? If the 10% are citing mostly incorrect reasons for their offense, do they still have a valid point? Most say no, but some seem too hung up on "red" and "skins" and their assumptions that it is still a slur when the facts show otherwise.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Spearfeather

Let's pause to laugh and talk about real stupid instead of mostly nonsense stupid ****. I take you all the way back to the primitive and uninformed days of 1968.

 

 

 

 

Now that's offensive!

 

Couldn't help but be reminded of Burton Leon Reynolds ( whose father was actually part Cherokee ) starring as:

 

 

NavajoJoe300.jpg

 

NavajoJoe-Still1.jpg

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

One theme that I do seem to see, a lot, from the folks who want the name changed, is the argument that the word can be used offensively. 

 

And I will grant that that argument (unlike many of the others used) at least has the benefit of being a true statement. 

 

That said, though, I don't really think that that fact really gets them much. 

 

I observe that the word "boy" can be used offensively, too.  But I don;t see any great groundswell to eliminate it from the language.  Or to demand that Dallas change their team's name.  (Although, of Orly Taitz or some such wants to try it, I might make a donation, just to watch the show.) 

 

Lots of words can be used offensively. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Spearfeather

One theme that I do seem to see, a lot, from the folks who want the name changed, is the argument that the word can be used offensively. 

 

And I will grant that that argument (unlike many of the others used) at least has the benefit of being a true statement. 

 

That said, though, I don't really think that that fact really gets them much. 

 

I observe that the word "boy" can be used offensively, too.  But I don;t see any great groundswell to eliminate it from the language.  Or to demand that Dallas change their team's name.  (Although, of Orly Taitz or some such wants to try it, I might make a donation, just to watch the show.) 

 

Lots of words can be used offensively. 

 

 

Absolutely 100% true, and as another poster alluded to, the simple phrases " whites " and " blacks "  could also be offensive, depending on the tone and context.

Edited by Spearfeather
Link to post
Share on other sites

Awesome follow-up brother Spearfeather. Loved being reminded of the Burt Reynolds (or Smokey as he was known to the really white people :P) classic. I had forgot all about that one.  :lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Jumbo changed the title to The Official ES All Things Redskins Name Change Thread (Reboot Edition---Read New OP)
  • Jumbo locked this topic
  • Jumbo unlocked this topic
  • Jumbo pinned this topic
  • Jumbo featured and unfeatured this topic
  • Jumbo locked and unlocked this topic
  • Jumbo locked and unpinned this topic
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...