Larry Posted October 8, 2014 Share Posted October 8, 2014 Read Codearama's account of how he felt as a non-NA hearing something you hoped was just an urban myth being made real right in front of you. Oh, I can certainly understand the notion that well, things are different when you've had your face rubbed in it. There was an account posted in this thread, probably a year or more ago. A link to a web page where somebody had posted a writing. The author was a white guy, who lives in a part of (Wyoming? Montana?) that has a lot of NA reservations. He mentions that, in Wyoming, the first two digits of your license plate identifies which county the plate was issued in. The author owns two vehicles: A car, which he transferred from another county, and a pickup, whose license plate begins with (59?) which identifies it as coming from (a county which is like 98% reservation). And he says it was amazing, to him, how many times he will be driving down the highway, and state troopers will pull a u-turn so they can pull him over, and then, when they're walking towards the car, look at the driver, grin at him, and wave for him to go on. But only when he's driving the truck with the 59 plates, never the other car. I assume this is why you will get such different answers to the question "is racism still a problem in the US?", when you ask whiles, and when you ask blacks. (Or, worse yet, the oft-expressed opinion that the only discrimination that exists in the US is discrimination against rich, white, Christian, males.) So, I have no doubt whatsoever, that a much higher percentage of Natives think that the word "redskin" has been used as an insult, than white folks. And I would not be shocked at all if a whole lot of them (Natives who've heard the term used as an insult) were of the opinion of "well, you (white) folks may not think it's an insult, but after you've had it snarled at you for years, it feels like an insult, to us." And I will also assert that, if they do feel that way, than all of the protestations of "well, the football team isn't trying to insult you", or "it wasn't intended to be insulting, when they started", or the word's origins, or any of the arguments as to why somebody thinks they shouldn't be offended, really don't matter. The fact that they feel offended is a fact, sufficient unto itself. Yeah, I suppose you have the right to try to persuade somebody to change his mind. But good luck with that. Unfortunately, though, we then get to the phrase "If they are offended". And the problem is that, the one and only time anybody even attempted to ask them, they overwhelmingly said that they aren't. Which would seem to indicate that either the vast majority of Natives have never encountered the life experiences which you have encountered, or else they have encountered them, but haven't chosen to blame the football team for said events. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taylor703 Posted October 8, 2014 Share Posted October 8, 2014 I'm getting to the point where I don't care anymore. If sacrificing the name meant we could win again, I'd change it in a heartbeat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted October 9, 2014 Share Posted October 9, 2014 I'm getting to the point where I don't care anymore. If sacrificing the name meant we could win again, I'd change it in a heartbeat. And I'd do it, too, if it meant I'd win the Powerball. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonez3 Posted October 9, 2014 Share Posted October 9, 2014 And that changing definition is reflected in dictionary definitions. I've read here and elsewhere that the editors of dictionaries should keep their two cents out of the discussion. As if these editors have an ideological opposition to Conservative values. Dictionary editors would review the popular media amd merely reflect the usage as expressed; be it newspapers, television, Internet, or otherwise. In the mid 1800's to the early 1900's, the word was used in print media as a negative slur more often than not. . This is corroborated by what?And the statement prior that I deleted suggested that the word hasn't been properly researched from 1600's, or that relations that were drivers for the word not explored. But you made it sound like it hasn't and it changed over time, and nobody formally recognized it. But it has been traced. And if these editors have such an 'abundance' of evidence in late 1800s to early 1900s that is was a slur, that should be easily produced I've read most of your posts (and coderama's too). They seem to focus around racism. The word itself is not universally associated by majority of other racist accounts. Sorry man, slurs don't hide in corners. They pervade all societal levels. That's how they grow power. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taylor703 Posted October 9, 2014 Share Posted October 9, 2014 And I'd do it, too, if it meant I'd win the Powerball. Well the odds of either of those things happening appear to be about the same at this point.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kosher Ham Posted October 9, 2014 Share Posted October 9, 2014 I believe that was the point of his post. You think the name has anything to do with the team winning ? It's completely absurd. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
s0crates Posted October 9, 2014 Share Posted October 9, 2014 I believe that was the point of his post. You think the name has anything to do with the team winning ? It's completely absurd. No more than any other sports curse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kosher Ham Posted October 9, 2014 Share Posted October 9, 2014 Exactly. Poor management/coaching, lack of talent/depth, injuries/age. The name ? haha. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Diesel Hog Posted October 9, 2014 Share Posted October 9, 2014 I haven't posted in here in a few days, is this still an issue? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grego Posted October 9, 2014 Share Posted October 9, 2014 It is through that lens that I had heard of the use of the word. thanks, salistala. its understandable that, based on your experience, the word is associated with negative feelings. what i hope for is this- that you understand that when the same word is used by a team (be it professional, high school, whatever) as its 'mascot', it has, essentially, the opposite meaning, and is not said in a denigrating way at all. there are words all over the english lanquage that have different meanings based on their context. '****' (word for a rooster) used to be my favorite. 'oreo' is probably the best modern example. words take on the definitions assigned to them by people. its a shame that some have taken a word that was a completely neutral term (that appears to come from native americans themselves) and used it negatively. i suppose the question is, does that negative use make every use of the word negative? it shouldnt. the word has been overwhelmingly used positively as the name of a football team for years. it rare use as a slur shouldnt affect that, or make the team accountable for the actions of racists. but i can at least understand why you have a negative feeling about it. thanks again for your input. i hope you stick around. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
planter Posted October 9, 2014 Share Posted October 9, 2014 I'm getting to the point where I don't care anymore. If sacrificing the name meant we could win again, I'd change it in a heartbeat. Concur. If we were the Washington Winners then people would have to call us "winners" even if we're 2-14. Or the Washington Champs? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grego Posted October 9, 2014 Share Posted October 9, 2014 Washington Weroances would be my suggestion. thats actually not a terrible idea, btw. its original, and keeping with a native american theme (which, you realize, some have a problem with), but kinda cool. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taylor703 Posted October 9, 2014 Share Posted October 9, 2014 I believe that was the point of his post. You think the name has anything to do with the team winning ? It's completely absurd. My point was I care more about winning than the name of the team. Sheesh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Diesel Hog Posted October 9, 2014 Share Posted October 9, 2014 I believe that was the point of his post. You think the name has anything to do with the team winning ? It's completely absurd. My point was I care more about winning than the name of the team. Sheesh. Gentlemen, please! Besides, don't you know it's the uniforms that determine wins, not the name? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patrick Evidente Posted October 9, 2014 Share Posted October 9, 2014 I haven't posted in here in a few days, is this still an issue?No, but Deadspin is still trying to make it an issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Salistala Posted October 9, 2014 Share Posted October 9, 2014 This is corroborated by what? http://www.merriam-webster.com/help/faq/words_in.htm http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/words/how-do-you-decide-what-to-include-in-a-dictionary Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonez3 Posted October 9, 2014 Share Posted October 9, 2014 This is corroborated by what? http://www.merriam-webster.com/help/faq/words_in.htm http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/words/how-do-you-decide-what-to-include-in-a-dictionary I get they have a method. I want to see actual sources and evidence it was frequently used as a slur in society during that period you mentioned.I'm not insensitive to your experience. I respect also that you're offended. But, I ask, if any other word for NAs was used in those instances, would they be considered a slur? I'm not so über pro name that if presented with objective evidence it's a racist term I couldn't change. In fact, I say if shown an opposite scenerio where it was prior offensive and now universally accepted by all as term of endearment, I still would promote change... BASED ON HISTORY ALONE. But, there is lack of historical data as well. I never heard it as a slur, but more important to me, it's not been proven to be used as slur. Rather, most examples I hear are racist accounts in which word was interjected. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Salistala Posted October 9, 2014 Share Posted October 9, 2014 1) I get they have a method. I want to see actual sources and evidence it was frequently used as a slur in society during that period you mentioned. 2) But, I ask, if any other word for NAs was used in those instances, would they be considered a slur? 1) "To be included in a Merriam-Webster dictionary, a word must be used in a substantial number of citations that come from a wide range of publications over a considerable period of time." I don't have the sources or evidence, but Merriam-Webster keeps citation files of each word that includes: the word itself an example of the word used in context bibliographic information about the source from which the word and example were taken from which they make their determination of word usage. According to that link I provided, they have 15.7 million citations (of all words, not just **skins) since they started collecting in the 1880s. I tried to find a link to many of the other dictionaries that spells it out as clearly as this, but most don't explicitly state it so well if at all. I couldn't imagine if other editors would use something completely unrelated to this process. 2) http://www.rsdb.org/race/native_americans Take your pick. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Salistala Posted October 9, 2014 Share Posted October 9, 2014 thats actually not a terrible idea, btw. its original, and keeping with a native american theme (which, you realize, some have a problem with), but kinda cool. It's a Patawomeck/Powhatan word for Chief/Commander/King and it's alliterative. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grego Posted October 9, 2014 Share Posted October 9, 2014 2) http://www.rsdb.org/race/native_americans Take your pick. i have issues with the dictionary argument, but i'll save that for another time. i did notice in that link, there are a number of words/terms (most of which i've never heard) that i would venture are used in their other 'normal' context 99.9% of the time. (apple, diesel, casino, buck, crow, eskimo, feather, etc). do you have a problem with those words in general? another thing i noticed is the origin of redskin- "The term Redskin, came from two places, the skin color, then the cruel torture of skinning Native Americans for a bounty. Since their skin was red they started saying "red skins."" it appears that there is no historical support of the scalps origin story. also, the origin of 'squaw' is said to be 'vagina' (but at least it says its controversial). these are both stories put out or repeated by susan harjo, neither of which appear to have any truth to them, but it makes for a good headline. also worth noting, from that site- Yank Americans A more commonly used derivative of Yankee, used by pretty much every other English speaking country in the world. It is usually derogatory, but can be an endearing term. Yankee Americans Slang used primarily by the British. Also used in the former Confederate states to refer to people of the Union states. Origins can be traced to the Ottowa Indians calling the English, "Yang-gees," which morphed into "Yankees" by the British who then took that home after the French and Indian war in 1763. Oreo Blacks A black person who acts white. Black on the outside, white on the inside. Or a person who half black/half white. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lombardi's_kid_brother Posted October 9, 2014 Share Posted October 9, 2014 1. I'm 90 percent sure Salistala is an accountant from Cleveland named Maury Schwartz. 2. I think the fact that the Redskins keep trotting out fake NAs is what makes this issue so interesting to me. I ultimately don't care about these rabbit holes regarding scalps and the like. What I find fascinating is our cultural relationship to Native American iconography. No one pretends to be Chinese or Mexican or black. But people pretend to be Native American. Why does that happen? Why is there that strong myth in the black community regarding NA ancestry that Dr. Henry Louis Gates addressed? http://www.theroot.com/articles/history/2014/04/why_most_black_people_aren_t_part_indian.html Why is this the one racial group that we "honor" with team nicknames and cartoon mascots? A lot of it seems grounded in patronization. But that's not it entirely. A lot of it actually seems tied to some weird proto-hippie spirituality. A spirituality that can be very twisted at times. George Preston Marshall was a legit racist, but he felt Indians had some spiritual connection to the Confederacy. Seriously, stop and think about that for a while. Ever see The Gangs of New York? It's a deeply flawed film but has a ton of fascinating moments. I really enjoyed the relationship that Daniel Day Lewis' character had with the Leo's father - the man he killed. He honored Priest, the man he killed, every year and gives a bizarre monologue about he was one of the few men who ever admired. I think we as a culture do that to Native Americans. We honor our worthy fallen foes - except they are still here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Salistala Posted October 9, 2014 Share Posted October 9, 2014 thanks again for your input. i hope you stick around. I accidentally found myself here following the debate. Can't remember where or when I first saw people debating the word/name, but there were some very strong voices opposed to change that I felt were repeating dubious facts or opinions in their support. I came storming in, maybe a little brashly, to put in my two cents. ~ Bang recommended that I do a little research before shouting into the melee. So I started reading the ES thread from the beginning. Wow, where do I go to get those 4-5 days back? But in the research I saw some value to what some here thought, and I got some insight to the backgrounds of some of the more thoughtful posters. I think that tempered my position a little, gone are the demands and "our way or the highway", but as I've said my experience still guides me and I feel balanced in my position now. I'll stick around, maybe post a little less but keep the community in my thoughts Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonez3 Posted October 9, 2014 Share Posted October 9, 2014 1) "To be included in a Merriam-Webster dictionary, a word must be used in a substantial number of citations that come from a wide range of publications over a considerable period of time." I don't have the sources or evidence, but Merriam-Webster keeps citation files of each word that includes: the word itself an example of the word used in context bibliographic information about the source from which the word and example were taken from which they make their determination of word usage. According to that link I provided, they have 15.7 million citations (of all words, not just **skins) since they started collecting in the 1880s.I tried to find a link to many of the other dictionaries that spells it out as clearly as this, but most don't explicitly state it so well if at all. I couldn't imagine if other editors would use something completely unrelated to this process. 2) http://www.rsdb.org/race/native_americans Take your pick. Frankly, and I'll repeat, until the isolate all 'slur' usage I'll just wait and see. One reason in particular, that so called rabbit hole of 'scalping/skinning' which for my money has been debunked, is in your second random data base source. How I am not to say Websters interpreted already known examples as evidence to them. Can I assume the bounty ad is one of the references? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grego Posted October 9, 2014 Share Posted October 9, 2014 Daniel Day Lewis i knew i liked you Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Salistala Posted October 9, 2014 Share Posted October 9, 2014 i have issues with the dictionary argument, but i'll save that for another time. i did notice in that link, there are a number of words/terms (most of which i've never heard) that i would venture are used in their other 'normal' context 99.9% of the time. (apple, diesel, casino, buck, crow, eskimo, feather, etc). do you have a problem with those words in general? another thing i noticed is the origin of redskin- "The term Redskin, came from two places, the skin color, then the cruel torture of skinning Native Americans for a bounty. Since their skin was red they started saying "red skins."" it appears that there is no historical support of the scalps origin story. also, the origin of 'squaw' is said to be 'vagina' (but at least it says its controversial). these are both stories put out or repeated by susan harjo, neither of which appear to have any truth to them, but it makes for a good headline. also worth noting, from that site- Yank Americans A more commonly used derivative of Yankee, used by pretty much every other English speaking country in the world. It is usually derogatory, but can be an endearing term. Yankee Americans Slang used primarily by the British. Also used in the former Confederate states to refer to people of the Union states. Origins can be traced to the Ottowa Indians calling the English, "Yang-gees," which morphed into "Yankees" by the British who then took that home after the French and Indian war in 1763. Oreo Blacks A black person who acts white. Black on the outside, white on the inside. Or a person who half black/half white. To both Grego and Bonez3, if you find the process for how dictionaries define words problematic, realize it can't be focused on only the word/name. This process applies to how they define all words; selfie, staycation, cougar, etc. I am merely a student of the language, and the dictionaries are a resource on how to use it As for the list of slurs, it appears that it was compiled by a NA, so since the scalping origin is widespread in NA belief it is included (valid or not). For me, chug and squaw are what makes my blood boil. But reading that list was kind of depressing, I never knew how many ways NAs could be disparaged. Frankly, and I'll repeat, until the isolate all 'slur' usage I'll just wait and see. One reason in particular, that so called rabbit hole of 'scalping/skinning' which for my money has been debunked, is in your second random data base source. How I am not to say Websters interpreted already known examples as evidence to them. Can I assume the bounty ad is one of the references? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.