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

[Sacks 'n' Stuff]

So where does the oxford dictionary get their information from?

Excellent question.

[Califan007 The Constipated]

Our first Owner started the team as the Boston Braves and soon after renamed the team the Boston Redskins who played at Fenway Park. Marshall then moved the team to D.C. in 1937.

I do not agree with those who oppose any cultural/ethnic sport mascot. Terms like "Braves" , "Vikings", or "Celtics" are tributes.

If we can find a more respectful NA name then we get to keep our cool logo.

 

The logo has been called offensive as well. You're fooling yourself if you think any aspect of our team's identity rooted in Native American culture will be "allowed" to be kept (and the whole idea of being "allowed" irritates me to no end).

So where does the oxford dictionary get their information from?

 

In just the past 25 years, "redskin" has undergone something of an evolution in English lexicography.

In 1976 (American Heritage, 1092) it was defined simply as "Informal. A North American Indian," with no mention of offensiveness or disparagement.

By 1989 (Oxford English, 429) it had become "A North American Indian. (Not the preferred term)."

In 1993 (Random House, 1618) it was "Slang (often disparaging and offensive). A North American Indian."

Now in 2000 (American Heritage), it has evolved into the more unequivocal "Offensive slang. Used as a disparaging term for a Native American."

[Califan007 The Constipated]

And for anyone thinking the Oxford dictionary should serve as some sort of unbiased, knowledgeable source of truth, consider this:

 

The online Oxford dictionary says that redskin "is first recorded in the late 17th century".

 

Only thing is, that's been proven incorrect. Ives Goddard shows almost conclusively that Oxford is linking the term's recorded origin to a fabricated letter supposedly written in 1699. So officially, the Oxford dictionary is passing off fiction as proven fact.

 

But at least Oxford does acknowledge that the terms "red skin" and "red man" are rooted in unoffensive, benign intentions and only over time did it start to become "outdated and offensive". Which is why I think the anti-Redskin side making the wild claims about "Redskin" originating in bloody scalps and violence against Indians was an asbolutely stupid way to go for the activists on that side. It's too easy to refute their claims.

[Bang]

Our first Owner started the team as the Boston Braves and soon after renamed the team the Boston Redskins who played at Fenway Park. Marshall then moved the team to D.C. in 1937.

I do not agree with those who oppose any cultural/ethnic sport mascot. Terms like "Braves" , "Vikings", or "Celtics" are tributes.

If we can find a more respectful NA name then we get to keep our cool logo.

 

I know all that.

I still say "F the Braves." It is

A/ from before the team moved to Washington, and

B/ a baseball team and

C/ a baseball team that is owned by a lizard.

 

Besides, these folks won't stand for any native name.

It's a waste of time to even try. The herd is a big dumb animal, and big dumb animals do not win with grace.

i see no reason to believe that this won't just embolden them to push even more against whatever else they want.

The logo is next.. they will push for it's dismissal as well.

 

any bets?

 

~Bang

[justice98]

And what should that have to do about a DAMN thing?

Nobody who thinks that Redskin is racist cares about what our team was formed upon. NOBODY!

All they think about is what their imaginary Native American friend would think.

 

Is that like all the people in this thread that trot out their 1/100th Native American friend as proof it's not racist?

 

"Well I have a NA friend and I asked him and he's cool with it."  Oh well then, that's the end of this conversation. lol

[Burgold]

Is that like all the people in this thread that trot out their 1/100th Native American friend as proof it's not racist?

 

"Well I have a NA friend and I asked him and he's cool with it."  Oh well then, that's the end of this conversation. lol

Mind you, that's a good for the gander argument.  Because Costas and UnWise Mike talked to a few of their Caucasion friends and decided it was racist.  Why would you discount one group of Native Americans over another.  Frankly, isn't it also racist to think that all Native Americans are the same and that the different tribes are all homogenous.

 

I've had my share of encounters with Native Americans personally and professionally on the radio and there does seem to be a spectrum of opinion.  Anyone who pretends they're all of one mind is full of bunk pro or anti.

[Larry]

Is that like all the people in this thread that trot out their 1/100th Native American friend as proof it's not racist?

I suppose it would be silly for me to ask you to NAME "all of the people in this thread" you're complaining about?

[Califan007 The Constipated]

Here's a REALLY bad article from Esquire magazine (of all places) about the name 'redskin':

 

A 'Redskin' Is the Scalped Head of a Native American, Sold, Like a Pelt, for Cash

 

 

Native Americans pass down stories to preserve their history and heritage, because we don’t have much of it left. As tribes were systemically exterminated, so too were their respective cultures. But we have our stories, and when my mother was young, her parents shared one about the term “redskins.”

 

The story in my family goes that the term dates back to the institutionalized genocide of Native Americans, most notably when the Massachusetts colonial government placed a bounty on their heads. The grisly particulars of that genocide are listed in a 1755 document called the Phips Proclamation, which zeroed in on the Penobscot Indians, a tribe today based in Maine.

 

Spencer Phips, a British politician and then Lieutenant Governor of the Massachusetts Bay Province, issued the call, ordering on behalf of British King George II for, “His Majesty’s subjects to Embrace all opportunities of pursuing, captivating, killing and Destroying all and every of the aforesaid Indians.” They paid well – 50 pounds for adult male scalps; 25 for adult female scalps; and 20 for scalps of boys and girls under age 12.

 

These bloody scalps were known as “redskins.”

 

The mascot of the Washington Redskins, if the team desired accuracy, would be a gory, bloodied crown from the head of a butchered Native American.

 

Defenders of the team nickname say its origin was totally benign, and that it’s not possible to know the true meaning of the word. Those defenders cite a Smithsonian article that traces an origin to skin color, before the systematic scalping. (A later Smithsonian quote disputed it.)

 

But my mother knew what it meant, or what it came to mean, and so do many other Native Americans.

 

Yes, forget what the Senior linguist at the Smithsonian Institute has to say on the matter...his mother knows what REALLY happened.

 

And when the writer claims that a "later Smithsonian quote disputed" Goddard's claims and findings on the origin of "redskin", here's what he was referring to:

 

 

 

Another panelist, who works for the Smithsonian, also said he did not care about the term’s history.

 

“I’m really not that interested in where the word comes from,” said Kevin Gover, a member of the Pawnee Nation of Oklahoma and director of the Smithsonian Institution’s National Museum of the American Indian.

 

In what delusional reality does "I don't care what the word's history is" equate to disputing the word's history? lol...

 

Again, what his mother was told as a child trumps any and all research and historical fact to the contrary...and "I don't care" is pretty much the same as saying "you're wrong". And again, this isn't some ramblings on an obscure blog...this is a write up in Esquire magazine, for Pete's sake lol.

[Burgold]

What I don't dispute is it could mean both and have had many meanings.  Where I find plausibility thought is that Oklahoma means Red Man... Were the Oklahomans naming themselves after a bloody scalp... bloody unlikely.  I also go back to what I said originally... if it only meant the scalp thing than there is no poll that finds it 80% unobjectionable amongst this population.  Take the negative words used to describe Jews, Italians, Japanese, Chinese, Irish, Africans, or pick your group... you will not be able to survey any of these groups today or ten years ago or fifty years ago and have 80% say... "Nah, I don't find that term objectionable."

 

So, it must have other definitions.  It must have other prominent meanings.  If it were only a term of murder it would never be tolerated or brushed aside.

[RemoveSnyder]

Wow. History is literally being re-written before my eyes. 

...

 

Esquire: 

- Tips on how to Manscape 

- Look ... Boobs!

- Why you should vilify "Redskins"

- How to re-write history 101

 

 

[Dallsux]

Question. Is it possible or even worth while to start a petition of sorts in support of the team name to have passed around online or otherwise to everyone that is willing to sign? We could have them sign their name, where they are from, & whether or not they are a Redskins fan & if not, who they are a fan of (mainly because if we have people who are fans of Cowboys, Giants, Eagles, 49ers, etc., it won't look like the only supporters are fans of the team).  I'm not necessarily asking for permission or even whether I should start this, but rather just looking for opinions & maybe spark interest with people who have power of influence who might have a good way of starting such a thing...if, in fact, it's a good idea.

 

Thoughts?

[Califan007 The Constipated]

Question. Is it possible or even worth while to start a petition of sorts in support of the team name to have passed around online or otherwise to everyone that is willing to sign? We could have them sign their name, where they are from, & whether or not they are a Redskins fan & if not, who they are a fan of (mainly because if we have people who are fans of Cowboys, Giants, Eagles, 49ers, etc., it won't look like the only supporters are fans of the team).  I'm not necessarily asking for permission or even whether I should start this, but rather just looking for opinions & maybe spark interest with people who have power of influence who might have a good way of starting such a thing...if, in fact, it's a good idea.

 

Thoughts?

 

It would depend on what your ultimate goal was...

 

For me, I think the only things that would help is either:

 

1) A grass-roots movement within the NA community who wants their voices heard so that "Redskins is offensive" doesn't come across as a monolithic viewpoint among American Indians. But I've already said why I don't see that ever happening.

 

2) Someone does a well-produced, well argued and well thought-out video explaining the pro-Redskin side like that one guy did for the argument that Art Monk deserved to be in the HOF. That guy took each argument against Monk point-by-point and addressed each with some hard-to-dismiss evidence contradicting those views. And it would be best if the video wasn't produced by the Redskins organization themselves...it should be done by an individual, Skins fan or not. It would need to make sure it mentions that both sides have valid points, but that the pro-Skins side is having their side ignored and the facts distorted, even if unintentionally. It would also need to show the various times throughout the franchise's history where NAs showed they were not only NOT offended by the term, but actually took some pride in the team. And of course it would have to do a thorough dissection of all the incorrect "facts" about the term 'redskin' that keep getting repeated in the media and among casual fans.

 

Because right now, a helluva lot of Redskins fans don't feel as if their viewpoint--and the positives associated with the team--are being given a voice in the media. So if someone were able to produce a GOOD, quality video explaining the team and fans' viewpoints and facts, and that could go viral, that would do wonders.

 

But I don't see that happening, either lol...(although I will admit I've thought about doing just that more than twice over the last year or so)..

[grego]

That esquire article is absolutely outrageous, Cali.

Truly, a "WTF", irresponsible, worthless peice of writing.

Add them to the list of people that will publish anything for clicks.

What's next? "Bobo finally found bigfoot. It's true cuz he said so. Case closed."

Or, "nutty activist claims 'squaw' is slang for 'vagina'- gets textbooks changed as a result of unsubstantiated claims"

That could never happen or anything.

[Springfield]

At this point I would think that someone who publishes an article arguing our side would be the ones considered posting for clicks.

[SWFLSkins]

Either way the point still remains.

 

NO Cali I do get you're point but the difference self appointed and impossible to remove, whereas the union officers are just next to impossible to remove, lol. 

[TK]

And for anyone thinking the Oxford dictionary should serve as some sort of unbiased, knowledgeable source of truth, consider this:

The online Oxford dictionary says that redskin "is first recorded in the late 17th century".

Only thing is, that's been proven incorrect. Ives Goddard shows almost conclusively that Oxford is linking the term's recorded origin to a fabricated letter supposedly written in 1699. So officially, the Oxford dictionary is passing off fiction as proven fact.

But at least Oxford does acknowledge that the terms "red skin" and "red man" are rooted in unoffensive, benign intentions and only over time did it start to become "outdated and offensive". Which is why I think the anti-Redskin side making the wild claims about "Redskin" originating in bloody scalps and violence against Indians was an asbolutely stupid way to go for the activists on that side. It's too easy to refute their claims.

By George I've got it!

Snyder has a background in publishing. He simply needs to buy the Oxford Dictionary and simply define it as a football team in DC.

[Califan007 The Constipated]

NO Cali I do get you're point but the difference self appointed and impossible to remove, whereas the union officers are just next to impossible to remove, lol. 

 

No, that's VERY true lol...seems the media helps annoint them as official mouthpieces for an entire community.

[Califan007 The Constipated]

Ah, lawd lol...here's this guy's response to those who felt the "Redskin=scalp" story was never proven:

 

Update: Yes, A 'Redskin' Does, In Fact, Mean the Scalped Head of a Native American, Sold, Like a Pelt, for Cash

 

Many have claimed that our story about the etymology of "Redskin" was wrong. This document from 1863 proves otherwise.

 

Then he posts this pic in the article:

 

 

 

We have this same pic posted in this thread...and have already said why using this image as "proof" that redskin=bloody scalp is asinine. Yet this guy is using it--in a major magazine article--as proof against his critics! lol...Holy hell.

 

There are some in the comments section who are as flabbergasted as I am that ANYONE felt this proves the origin of the word is in the scalping of Indians for money. I am absolutely floored that someone would have so little knowledge of the term 'redskin' and feel THAT embolded to respond with that pic. Seriously. And people like this guy are given national podiums to speak authoritatively on the subject. It's embarassing.

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

Here's the writer's (Baxter Holmes) twitter if anyone wants to...discuss things things with him:

http://www.twitter.com/BaxterHolmes

He's normally the Celtics beat writer for the Boston Globe.

[Califan007 The Constipated]

Some of the comments:

 

The term "red-skin" used here refers to people, not scalps. Look at the sentence: You don't send scalps to purgatory...you send PEOPLE to purgatory (if you believe in that particular dogma.) Replace the word "red-skin" here with any racial slur and you can see that it means PEOPLE, not scalps. Big difference. "Scalps" are not called "redskins." They're called scalps. I'm not saying that "redskins" isn't offensive...but if we're playing semantics here, it's clear that "redskins" refers to Native Americans themselves...not their scalps, and the original article was not accurate.

 

Is this the only document you have to support the idea that the term "red-skin" means the scalped hair of a native? Because that's really subject to interpretation. There ie nothing in this document that indicates the scalp alone is required. I only read "The state reward for dead [natives] has been increased to $200 for every [native] sent to Purgatory.] If this is your only proof, it is hardly irrefutable.

 

Nobody is arguing that Native Americans were killed for bounties. Nobody is arguing that scalps were used to collect these bounties. What is being contended is that this proves that the term "redskin" was referred to the scalp itself, rather than the Native American.

 

 

And one comment (part in bold) I absolutely love:

 

This was the wrong answer, Mr. Holmes. The right answer would have been:

"Words mean what people agree they mean. And I've learned that most people don't agree that "red-skins" refers to scalps, not people. So I was mistaken to assert that's what the word means."

"But let's not allow that error to distract us from what we all *can* agree on: that the term "red-skins" is NOT a respectful one. We all know this: if your boss were a Native American, would you call him a red-skin to his face? If your daughter married a Native American man, would you think of your grandchildren as half-redskins? Would you wince if someone else called them that?"

If that argument isn't compelling enough, re-defining words from their common usage isn't going to make it any better. It just allows people to dismiss an otherwise-valid point because you threw away your credibility.

 

 

Another good one:

 

Unfortunately, no -- using that text as proof is an incredibly dubious claim in the best case scenario, and just plain misleading/deceptive in the worst. Judging by the comments already posted (on this page and the original article), the vast majority of readers don't have a problem with the author pushing for a name change; they are simply saying someone can't state things as fact just because they think they're true or want them to be.

The author saying this document "proves" his claim makes him look either stupid or like he's trying to manipulate history to support his cause. Either way, it damages his credibility and his point.

 

As others have said, this document does not prove that the term was used for scalps, unless Purgatory is a place in Minnesota that buys scalps.

Furthermore, since you acknowledge that words evolve over time, and have not proven that the origins of the word is from scalping, or indeed negative at all, then I ask - does the word not now commonly refer to the Washington football team?

 

 

I am heartened to see the responses in the comments section. Not all of them are like the ones I posted, but enough of them are to temper my irritation lol...

[TK]

Speaking of Media Idiots......

 

 

 

[Califan007 The Constipated]

^^^ OMFG...Wise somehow goes even further on the down escalator of ridiculousness lol.

[Dallsux]

It would depend on what your ultimate goal was...

 

...But I don't see that happening, either lol...(although I will admit I've thought about doing just that more than twice over the last year or so)..

I appreciate your answer & totally agree. To clarify, my goal would be simply to show the diverse & abundance of people who support the name & that changing it would be unnecessary.

 

And I love your idea. Maybe somehow combining the 2 would be something to consider as well, although I don't exactly know how that would work.

 

Either way, I guess I'm just tired of the negativity always being aired & not enough of the actual facts & positives being put out there. I would love to see your idea put into action. People need to see/hear the truth. When someone at work says the name is derogatory without having anything to back that up, it frustrates me because I know he's not going to look up the information himself, but just follow the rest of the media rhetoric regardless of how wrong it is.

 

Anyway, like I said, we need to see something put together to bring our side of this to light. One way or another.

[TK]

^^^ OMFG...Wise somehow goes even further on the down escalator of ridiculousness lol.

HOPEFULLY the Post will suspend him again. It's too much to expect them to fire his candy ass.

[Califan007 The Constipated]

Oh, and in the Esquire writer's rebuttal about 'redskin' never proven to mean bloody scalps of Indians, he says this doozy:

 

The fact remains that to many Native Americans, the term “redskin” has long meant the act of our ancestor’s scalps being collected for bounty.

 

So my question is, what if it's proven to be wrong? Do we still change the team's name because a certain percentage of Native Americans believe in a myth? Because this guy is basically saying "WE believe the story to be true, that's all that matters".

 

Somebody else in the comments section said this, which is completely true:

 

"Many have claimed that our story about the etymology of 'Redskin' was wrong." So they double-down with another example showing that, indeed, their etymology is wrong!

This bothers me as a reporter. The writer is a staffer for the Boston Globe, for Pete's sake. Once upon a time there were editors who would throw a piece this shoddy back at the kid for a lack of any demonstrated facts -- or rather, I should say, there were editors who would do this at papers that considered themselves removed from tabloids or Confidential magazine.

This is Journalism 101. How did this guy rise to a position on a major metropolitan daily without having a basic understanding of the meaning of words, of how demonstrable facts are needed to back up an assertion, whether straight news or opinion?