Alaskins

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

Recommended Posts

So getting rid of a word like Redskins (which is questionable as to it's intent) would right the wrong committed against the Native Americans.

Obviously not.

And please find one post where I ever have not sided with the Native Americans in that regard. You want to make right, give them their land back and hope they allow you to stay on it.

You seem to be responding to some sort of accusation. Let me be clear, I've not accused you of anything. You asked for a better word than mistreated and I made a suggestion, nothing more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Obviously not.

You seem to be responding to some sort of accusation. Let me be clear, I've not accused you of anything. You asked for a better word than mistreated and I made a suggestion, nothing more.

 

 

Accusation of what? I was not at wounded knee. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Redskins" was coined by the natives themselves to differentiate themselves from Europeans and Africans. It is a name. It is a descriptor. It was not coined by anti-native Europeans in an effort to describe natives in a derogatory way. Example: If you tell me your name is Larry and I refer to you as Larry I am not calling you a bad name. This is simple.

 

If I were to call you dirty Larry, or greasy Larry, or dishonest Larry then I am adding derogatory adjectives to your name to describe you. It is the same when racists use these same adjectives to describe natives. It doesn't mean that the name is a slur or a pejorative. It means that people are using a name in a way it was not intended to be used.

 

It also means that language is imperfect and lacking. Had the natives decided to call themselves the sky people and GPM named his team the Washington Sky People would that be a slur? No. The only reason this has any traction is that after the civil rights struggles of African Americans everyone is hyper-sensitive to the use of color to describe people. Referring to a race of people by their own name for themselves is not racist or derogatory. It is using an historically accurate name, period.

 

You lament that most people either ignore or refuse to learn of the history and plight of the American Indian. Do you think that eradicating all mention of them in American popular culture will help that deficiency?

Oh, new name idea. The Washington Offended. Our new logo could be anybody currently in this country.

 

This is spot on! Well said section106!

 

HTTR

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As unsavory as it is, and what isn't about this club, Snyder will change the name once the price is right. 

 

tumblr_m8385xXEiT1r270ozo1_250_zpsb0f12c

 

Maybe a publicly funded stadium will bring enlightenment. In the end, there's a cost to this whole thing and he's just not willing to bear the brunt of that cost. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I will argue that the situation with NAs and the European settlers is far more complicated and ambivalent than the two examples you cite.  I will focus on the Nazis as I am not familiar with the Rwandan case, though at first glance it seems different to me too.  Hitler sought to systematically exterminate the Jewish people.  That was never a policy of the US government.  We were allied with various tribes at different times in our history, we entered treaties that I believe many of the signatories meant to honor ( greed and increasing pressure of migration led to their being broken).  We have identified with NAs as "American" since at least the Boston Tea Party..

 

Did Hitler sign treaties with the Jewish people?

Did he put their images on currency?

Did he use their images to brand 450 different products?

Were German High School teams named after them?

 

These "branding'' instances would not occur if there was not a positive connotation to NA imagery in America.

I am not denying the atrocities outlined in Bury My Heart. They are terrible, and typical of what conquering people have done to the conquered throughout history.  Humans of all races are capable of unspeakable evil.  The NAs gave as good as they got at times.  As to genocide, the majority of the number often cited was due to disease, which was inadvertent (though no less tragic).  If it had not been for the fact that Europeans raised livestock and had developed resistance to those diseases they introduced the story might have been flipped.

 

This is a thoughtful post.  I think you have an interesting point about branding implying a positive connotation. I also appreciate that you acknowledge the atrocities outlined in Bury My Heart. 

 

You dispute my analogy of the indigenous genocide to other genocides, and I'll agree that the analogy is not exact.  My main concern is that we understand that what was done to the indigenous people was genocide, which is an attempt to dehumanize and eliminate a cultural or ethnic group. I think you understate the evil that was done.  The European treatment of Native Americans was far from "ambivalent." 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Elessar78

 

-I don't believe that one bit.  Snyder is not just the owner of the REDSKINS, but a fan of the team and its rich history.  His team brings in the 3rd highest in revenue out of the 32 NFL teams.  He is not hurting for money, even if the "price is right".  He wont change the name unless forced.  Thank god he has taken a strong stance to not change the name for some idiotic liberal senators crying about something they have no business being in.

 

HTTR

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I read that too, but I didn't make a connection until you posted this.  If the name is a known slur since the 1800's why would she even go to a Redskins game in the first place.  [/size]

 

 [/size]

 

This is just another example of an inconsistency in her argument.[/size]

 

 [/size]

It's probably a lie...it's not like she hasn't been caught in those before.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

These things are EASILY compartmentalized into sub sects of context, & to say it all stands on one platform is, simply put, intellectually challenged. Conversely. ..your scenario ignores the fact that America is FOUNDED under the principles of choice. The term Redskins in use under the guise of entertainment intellectually lends itself to immunity from public opinion. You know why? Because you can change the channel, you can walk away, you can root for another team, you can ignore sports altogether. ..

 

 

I don't think I would be so quick to challenge another man's intellect if I were you . . .

Edited by s0crates

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are my arguments irrational? In what way?

Are there no relevant differences b/w Yankees, Canucks, Tar Heels, and Redskins?

I think a Tar Heel is an exporter of tar, not a race. I think a Yankee is an American revolutionary, not a race. I think a Canuck is a Canadian national, not a race. Whereas a Redskin is a member of a race. Might people be offended at the use of a racial monicker?

Also, and correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the history of Yankees and Canucks drastically different then the history of Redskins? You say that is irrelevant. Why?

 

Didn't say you were being irrational, jst that you need to be calmer if you wanted to be received well.

 

In terms of YOUR argument, past offensiveness matters for a team name when it refers to a group of people. Yankee referred to all Americans initially, Canuck referred to all Canadians, Tar Heel after the Civil War referred to people from a region negatively as a lower class. They were all terms used to offend and degrade a group of people, so they are all relevant. So no, race doesn't matter, nor does past history in terms of amount of usage. If Redskins has to be changed today because it was offensive at one point in the past, then ALL team names that were offensive terms for ANY people at one point should be changed today as well, otherwise you're not being fair and are applying a double standard.

 

The history of Redskins is that it was created and used by NAs and then initially used by whites as a benign descriptor for almost 100 years. Then, in late 1800s you started seeing negative words like dirty and greasy preceding Redskins, but the word itself still was used as a descriptor. This is why NA high schools like Wellpinit, founded early 1900s, used Redskins and why Marshall chose the name. Nobody, not even a racist, would name their own team after something they thought was a negative slur, that just doesn't make sense. Then, in the trademark case hearing in 1999 and 2003, researchers showed that analyzing the usage of Redskins in various forms of print, the word was used for something other than the football team less than 2% of the time from 1969 to 1996. That hasn't changed today.

 

So the history of the word is it was created by NAs, benign descriptor use for 100 years, still used as a descriptor and accepted by many NAs but at times had negative connotations for 80 years, and the last 45 years it has referred to the sports team 98% of the time.

 

 

There's this bit of new news:

 

Bravo! Wellpinit High School: http://m.kxly.com/news/school-board-votes-to-keep-wellpinit-redskins/26580298

 

School board votes to keep the name. The reservation the school is one wanted to keep the name, they listened and kept it. They consider the name a point of pride.

Edited by elkabong82
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Elkabong,

Suppose you're right about the history and meaning of the word "Redskins." I myself have used the word most of my life without any disparaging intent.

Is that what I should say to the descendants of people my ancestors commited atrocities against when they tell me they're offended?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Elkabong,

Suppose you're right about the history and meaning of the word "Redskins." I myself have used the word most of my life without any disparaging intent.

Is that what I should say to the descendants of people my ancestors commited atrocities against when they tell me they're offended?

 

No, you should ask them why they are offended. If they say incorrect things like the NCAI has done, such as Redskins has always been derogatory and comes from bloody scalps, then you should tell them the truth because their offense is based on lies.

 

If they are offended because the word had a negative usage once upon a time, you should tell them that it has had a long-standing positive usage for many decades and that's how several NA high schools use it as well. Or you can point out that they are applying today's standards to an outdated context of the word, and that today it just means a sports team, much like Americans have accepted Yankee in that same context and Candians have accepted Canucks.

 

You can tell them that the word was started by NAs and was meant as a positive and that is the context the team uses and you cheer for.

 

If they bring up past oppression like you are doing, you can tell them that it is irrelevant and a poor attempt at a guilt trip.You can also point out that in discussing things, you have seen many Native Americans voice their support for the name because they identify with it.

 

You can ask them if they feel right in trying to take away something many Native Americans take pride in.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

s0crates,

 

What you tell them is that your sorry that they are offended.  Then you assure them that the intent of the Washington Redskins is not to offend anyone, in anyway.  You then educate them, saying that the Washington Redskins is a sports team that is trying to honor native Americans.  That there is great pride and tradition, and that we sing "Hail to the Redskins" at home games when touch downs are scored.  You tell them that the fans of the Washington Redskins are in no way using our beloved teams name as a derogatory slur. You tell them how much the team means to you, and the pride you feel being a fan of the Washington Redskins.  You tell them about the compassion you feel on game day when you want the skins to beat the cowboys.  When your done this person will understand that you are in no way using the term redskin as a racial term, but as a badge of pride, because you love your team and you bleed burgundy and gold.

 

Hail to the redskins.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a thoughtful post.  I think you have an interesting point about branding implying a positive connotation. I also appreciate that you acknowledge the atrocities outlined in Bury My Heart. 

 

You dispute my analogy of the indigenous genocide to other genocides, and I'll agree that the analogy is not exact.  My main concern is that we understand that what was done to the indigenous people was genocide, which is an attempt to dehumanize and eliminate a cultural or ethnic group. I think you understate the evil that was done.  The European treatment of Native Americans was far from "ambivalent." 

I don't know that any of us disregard the atrocities committed to the Natives by our ancestors. In fact, I would say, if anything, the traditions & culture we have so lovingly embraced as Redskins fans is our way of keeping those things real & honoring those people by keeping the memory of them alive. In all the reading I have done about this, the word "redskin" was never used society-wide as a derogatory term. Everything I have come across refers the derogatory notes as "savages". Wherever this information is coming from that "redskin" was used to degrade Natives is seemingly fairly remote, considering it's origin resides with the Natives themselves. Just about every other claim to it's origin has been reputed & dismissed.

 

Now, as far as whether or not a minority has the right to be offended or not, my opinion is this. Yes, they do. However, having the right to be offended by something & dictating the outcome of that something because you are offended by it are 2 entirely different things. I am offended daily by things I see on tv. Things that offend me as a Christian, things that offend me as a male, things that offend me as an American. Most of those things I am more than likely in the minority on & I have every right to be offended by those things. But, simply because I am offended doesn't mean that they have to change.

 

Now, in the context of the argument on the table, there is not a single group of people that has not, in some way at some time, endured some sort of atrocities to them. That includes Americans from Europe. Let us not forget that our ancestors came here escaping injustices. And while I believe that there should be more done for the Native American communities, changing the name of our beloved football team is not one of them. I happen to agree with several Natives that I have read about who fear that changing the names of all sports teams that represent Native Americans, history can be re-written & we as a whole, will forget them altogether over time.

 

As it is, & has been stated here in this thread, this case has reminded us about things that took place that we learned about years ago & some things that we didn't know. It's not exactly like this information is thrust upon us regularly. The atrocities that have been done to the black man in this country is something we are virtually reminded of every day & we even have a month designated to remembering our brothers & sisters of color & honoring them & the horrible things that were done over the course of our young nation, yet not a single month, week, or even day (to my knowledge) is set aside to honor the Native Americans. At least, not in such a wide-spread & vocal manner. Yet, as Redskins fans, we are a constant reminder to those who would like to forget that there is a whole culture of people who were wronged repeatedly & regularly & a people who deserve better. We are a reminder of people that need to be remembered.

 

Now, maybe, a small amount of Native Americans are truly offended by the name because for some reason or in some way, the word "Redskin" was used to degrade them. To them I would say, "I am truly sorry that happened to you". However, to the 90+% of Native Americans who consider the word a badge of honor, we would be doing them an enormous injustice by changing the name & we would be forgetting how important they are to our culture, not just as Redskins fans, but as Americans as a whole.

Edited by Dallsux
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, you should ask them why they are offended. If they say incorrect things like the NCAI has done, such as Redskins has always been derogatory and comes from bloody scalps, then you should tell them the truth because their offense is based on lies.

If they are offended because the word had a negative usage once upon a time, you should tell them that it has had a long-standing positive usage for many decades and that's how several NA high schools use it as well. Or you can point out that they are applying today's standards to an outdated context of the word, and that today it just means a sports team, much like Americans have accepted Yankee in that same context and Candians have accepted Canucks.

You can tell them that the word was started by NAs and was meant as a positive and that is the context the team uses and you cheer for.

If they bring up past oppression like you are doing, you can tell them that it is irrelevant and a poor attempt at a guilt trip.You can also point out that in discussing things, you have seen many Native Americans voice their support for the name because they identify with it.

You can ask them if they feel right in trying to take away something many Native Americans take pride in.

This is HORRIBLE advice unless you happen to be Native American yourself. The bold section most of all. Edited by Destino
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I were to meet a Native American who told me he found the mascot offensive because his people have been viciously oppressed for over 400 years and our mascot trivializes his people and their suffering, even if he were in the minority, I would not be able to offer him a defense of the name that I would be proud to call my own.

I have no idea what makes something a slur. I was hoping somebody who was so certain "Redskins" is not a slur could enlighten me. I do know that Redskins refers to a race of people who have been the victims of (arguably) the worst genocide in human history. I don't know what that implies, besides my own discomfort with a team and mascot that I have cheered for as long as I can remember.

You have to understand I have profound cognitive dissonance over this. I cannot count the number of times I've sung "Hail to the Redskins" loudly and jubilantly, but I've learned a lot about actual Redskins over the years, and it is gut-wrenching. When somebody asks me about my being a Redskins fan in an accusatory tone, I know exactly what they are accusing me of, and it makes me feel shame. I love this team more than you imagine, but the name makes me uncomfortable.

Socrates , that's a very honest and thoughtful post.

I guess what I'm wondering is this- is it the fact that the team has a Native American theme troubling? Or is it the name "redskins"?

I kind of understand the "guilt" thing- there's plenty of history we learn in school that paints white men in (of which I would be one) in this country as pretty freaking evil.

While it is, indeed, shameful that there were attempts to wipe out the Native American population - just like it boggles my mind that we had "colored" bathrooms not too many decades ago- I understand that it was not something I personally participated in or condoned.

In fact, the history of some ethnic groups in this country has caused me to embrace people whose backgrounds differ from my own, and my family and friends are a diverse group because of it.

I would say this- if the teams mascot were chief wahoo, I think I would not be comfortable with that, probably cuz it's smiling, obvious cartoonish caricature of a Native American, just as not comfortable with a bunch of white people doing a tomohawk chop at a braves game, or even dressing up in war paint and head dresses.

And I know it's not from a lack of perspective- I didn't grow up with this team. Hell, I'm not even from this country. I adopted this team when I was in my early twenties so it's not a tradition thing for me.

Anyway, that's just my perspective. Thanks, as always, for your honest opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Elkabong,

Suppose you're right about the history and meaning of the word "Redskins." I myself have used the word most of my life without any disparaging intent.

Is that what I should say to the descendants of people my ancestors commited atrocities against when they tell me they're offended?

 

I wouldn't tell them anything other than the intent of the word for you and where it came from historically. I would also ask why they felt that the world was hurtful  and related to the "genocide" attempt in early American history. ---this is how I have handled recently my encounter with Oklahoma and previously any other NA I met. I never tried to give them their opinion, but I did ask for theirs. You seem much more hurt by the name then they did. One guy in particular said just like society in general the youth does not respect the elders on this, I thought later how profound that was. He is saying if the elders lived with it so long and had no problem with it, why is it now a problem?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just can't get over the fact that you're telling people to just get over something that offends them and their people and that they're basically wrong/misinformed/whatever for feeling that way. That is asinine, especially when you're not Native American.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a thoughtful post.  I think you have an interesting point about branding implying a positive connotation. I also appreciate that you acknowledge the atrocities outlined in Bury My Heart. 

 

You dispute my analogy of the indigenous genocide to other genocides, and I'll agree that the analogy is not exact.  My main concern is that we understand that what was done to the indigenous people was genocide, which is an attempt to dehumanize and eliminate a cultural or ethnic group. I think you understate the evil that was done.  The European treatment of Native Americans was far from "ambivalent." 

 

By ambivalent I mean the U.S. government had contradictory feelings towards the natives, not that they were indifferent.  Certainly some agents of the government admired and respected the NAs as you are familiar with from Bury My Heart.  Custer’s group was defeated in part by repeating rifles supplied to the Lakota by the U.S. Government for Buffalo hunting.  You do not arm people you mean to exterminate.  Sitting Bull was not killed after his capture, he was treated as a prisoner of war.  Even Custer wrote of his respect and admiration of NAs lifestyles, though he certainly did not mind killing them either.

 

As examples of the Europeans affinity towards NAs I will put up the examples of St. Tammanend, Pocahontas, Sacagawea, the Thanksgiving story, Last of the Mohicans, etc.  It is more complicated than just a one to one relationship due to individual tribes and personalities, certainly there are substantial examples of animosity and hatred.

 

Again, I am not downplaying the atrocities committed. The main impetus was the acquisition of land.  We would say ‘hey, you can have this land over here’ and then after a while we would be spreading onto that land and further marginalize them (and there was a policy of assimilation which the NAs rightly objected to) until the time period described in Bury My Heart where the frontier was closed.  When the frontier was closed there was a sense of loss in that the “go west young man’ dream was gone.  I believe NAs are a symbol to our society of the open frontier that is important to how we perceive ourselves as a nation.  Whether that is appropriate or not is up for debate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just can't get over the fact that you're telling people to just get over something that offends them and their people and that they're basically wrong/misinformed/whatever for feeling that way. That is asinine, especially when you're not Native American.

 

who?

 

i think one thing you may be referring to with the 'misinformed' part is the scalping origin of the term? but i'm not sure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

who?

i think one thing you may be referring to with the 'misinformed' part is the scalping origin of the term? but i'm not sure.

Um nearly every post on this page which is telling a poster to tell NAs that they shouldn't be offended because dot dot dot.

That's bull****. Especially when you're not a NA or even a minority

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Um nearly every post on this page which is telling a poster to tell NAs that they shouldn't be offended because dot dot dot.

That's bull****. Especially when you're not a NA or even a minority

 

I don't think it's fair to say someone can't/shouldn't opine because they aren't a minority or NA.  I think if that were the case this thread wouldn't be so long at the moment.

 

Encouraging someone to refine their delivery or their arguments on the actual merits is another thing.

 

Hang in there, brother.  It's only 90 minutes that you have to root against Mertesacker :P

Edited by DC9

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just can't get over the fact that you're telling people to just get over something that offends them and their people and that they're basically wrong/misinformed/whatever for feeling that way. That is asinine, especially when you're not Native American.

 

Who is telling "them" to get over it? Remember who took up this cause in the name of Native Americans. There was no outcry for all these years, to think the intent of the name suddenly changed is asinine. Oh and if you can't get over differing opinions I don't know what to tell you. Hell there are Cowboy fans out there, I got over that a long time ago. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think it's fair to say someone can't/shouldn't opine because they aren't a minority or NA. I think if that were the case this thread wouldn't be so long at the moment.

Encouraging someone to refine their delivery or their arguments on the actual merits is another thing.

Hang in there, brother. It's only 90 minutes that you have to root against Mertesacker :P

Already tweeted him, Ozil, and Podolski lol. They understand

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.