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

[Kosher Ham]

Never been called a chug or squaw either.

 

I have always identified simply by saying I am an American.

 

People always ask...what does it matter ?

 

Nevermind...Deaf ears.

 

No one wants to listen to the Natives that think it is absurd...only to the offended.

 

I also can not stand the fact that most of the people that are for change are NOT Natives.

That does not make sense at all.

 

Salistala, that is offensive.

 

I do not need a captain save a ho. If you read this thread you would know that.

[RedskinsFan44]

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.

I have said it before, but I believe that NAs are a strong symbol of America, something unique to this land.  The use of NA iconography as representing "America" goes back at least to the Boston Tea Party.  I also think that the Indian way of life always has had some appeal to many people as an alternative to our ownership society, the ideal of living in tune with nature and being free to roam.

[Salistala]

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.

 

1) Dude, lol. Why? No offense to Maury, but I ain't him. I'm from a little reserve on the west coast of Canada about 150 miles from Alaska. My name is a nickname given to me by my childhood best friends late dad. I keep it because it best describes me, it means "one who goes round and round" from an accident I had on a fishing boat but also describes the way I think and debate.

 

2) I know Deadspin has a reputation in this debate but this piece really looks at your second point:

 

http://deadspin.com/redskins-a-natives-guide-to-debating-an-inglorious-1445909360

 

The author starts by saying he personally doesn't have a position either way about the name, but as a NA he has some thoughts on the debate. Please read and consider before knee jerking an opposing voice. I will never use the phrase "knee jerk" now without thinking about that list.

[grego]

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

 

 

 

the problem with going to the dictionary when it comes to 'redskin' is that- since the dictionary doesnt do proper nouns- it has to produce a meaning of the term that is so much more obscure and rare than the most common, obvious, everyday definition of the word. 

 

in that sense, they may be right- nobody calls a native american a 'redskin', i would think, unless they are doing so negatively. in the sense that language evolves, i agree. and i think redskin has gone from originally being a benign word for a native american, to a word not commonly used, to the name of a football team. 

 

but websters cant mention its most common use. 'yankee' isnt a baseball player from new york. 'oreo' isnt a cookie (though it may be mentioned under origin, but then, no such explanation is done for 'redskin'), its a racial slur, though the cookie is the far more common usage. nobody says they are 'fagged' out when meaning they are tired, or in reference to a cigarette. but the last definition listed is 'homosexual'. 

 

it just doesnt reflect reality.

 

thats essentially why i think the dictionary isnt the end all/be all of arguments against the name. 

 

btw- susan harjo doesnt like ives goddards research because its 'just another white man sticking up for a white man', but she'll cite the dictionary argument. who does she think wrote the dictionary?

[Bonez3]

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.

I have a bit of an affinity if sorts for language myself. And I feel it is imperative to question the source. You mentioned earlier that it would be odd if there was an agenda. Well, language is power, so it would be more absurd to not assume. Reference 1984.

However, I still remained grossly unmoved by Websters subjective view. Sorry bout that

[Salistala]

Never been called a chug or squaw either.

Chug is big in Canada, at least on the west coast. Has been used internally, in the same way as "n-word" is with gangsta culture, but I still don't like it

 

I have always identified simply by saying I am an American.

I would like to say this in the least patronizing way, please know that unnecessarily maligning someone is not my style. Good for you, I'm glad your happy in your self identification, all I wish for is that everyone can share in your happiness.

 

To quote Rage Against the Machine, "If ignorance is bliss, you can wipe the smile off my face" I have a hard time making peace with the idea that a colonial government would intentionally infect my ancestors with smallpox, wiping out between 95%-98% of our population, so they could have unrestricted access to timber and salmon. Then after all that when we persisted in advocating for basic human rights and sovereignty they would "kidnap" every single child into a residential school system designed as the Final Solution to the "Indian Problem"

 

 

I also can not stand the fact that most of the people that are for change are NOT Natives.

That does not make sense at all.

I prefer to think they are allies, interested in working towards an egalitarian society. Yet, as in all allies in race relation debates, they should take their cue from prominent informed voices of the group they advocate for.

 

I do not need a captain save a ho. If you read this thread you would know that.

Truthfully, I skimmed and stopped when there was a fierce debate raging on a point. So I missed the reference.

[grego]

 

 

The author starts by saying he personally doesn't have a position either way about the name, but as a NA he has some thoughts on the debate. Please read and consider before knee jerking an opposing voice. I will never use the phrase "knee jerk" now without thinking about that list.

 

 

but you will still say knee jerk, as you should, because youre not referring to a native american.

[Salistala]

but you will still say knee jerk, as you should, because youre not referring to a native american.

 

Well played, Grego for the win

[Larry]

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.

 

 

Just observing, as to historical usage, that there's a newspaper advertisement from long ago that's been posted in this thread a few times. 

 

The advertisement is announcing that a $20 bounty will be paid for any Native scalps brought in.  It includes a phrase along the lines of "let's send lots of redskins to Purgatory". 

 

Now, the ad gets brought into the thread by people trying to claim that they've discovered proof that the word "redskins" refers to Native scalps.  And it doesn't prove that, at all.  (As someone pointed out, you don;t send scalps to Purgatory, you send people.) 

 

However, that ad absolutely does serve as an example of the word "redskin" being used to refer to native people, in the context of encouraging people to kill them. 

 

Which I think sure answers your question, about the term being used in a negative way, a long time ago. 

[Salistala]

Just observing, as to historical usage, that there's a newspaper advertisement from long ago that's been posted in this thread a few times. 

 

The advertisement is announcing that a $20 bounty will be paid for any Native scalps brought in.  It includes a phrase along the lines of "let's send lots of redskins to Purgatory". 

 

"The State reward has been increased to $200 for every red-skin sent to Purgatory. This sum is more than the dead bodies of all the Indians east of the Red River are worth"

Published a little over 151 years ago in Minnesota. ($200 in 1863 is equivalent to $3811 in 2014)

 

I agree that the term doesn't refer anywhere to scalps, but to say the term is without connotation is disingenuous.

[Bonez3]

Just observing, as to historical usage, that there's a newspaper advertisement from long ago that's been posted in this thread a few times.

The advertisement is announcing that a $20 bounty will be paid for any Native scalps brought in. It includes a phrase along the lines of "let's send lots of redskins to Purgatory".

Now, the ad gets brought into the thread by people trying to claim that they've discovered proof that the word "redskins" refers to Native scalps. And it doesn't prove that, at all. (As someone pointed out, you don;t send scalps to Purgatory, you send people.)

However, that ad absolutely does serve as an example of the word "redskin" being used to refer to native people, in the context of encouraging people to kill them.

Which I think sure answers your question, about the term being used in a negative way, a long time ago.

I loosely cited this. But, on the risk of sounding like a close minded, gotta have my football teams name on Sunday person, I still don't think that at all makes it a slur.

Others here have also stated that other words could have been used there. Who can say it wasn't just more common vernacular. It just seems a extrapolation from an ad as being the most used source hardly makes a great case.

I would think the word, if truly a slur, would have transcended tjrough the years and society. And, while my opinion, would not have been used as a mascots name.

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?

Loose use of citation I was talking about. That ad can be interpreted many ways. But my point is, if Redskin was so derogatory, this ad would likely be a footnote on history rather than a Rosetta stone

[Larry]

1. I'm 90 percent sure Salistala is an accountant from Cleveland named Maury Schwartz.

I am not endorsing your "theory". (I will observe that I think you're calling the man a liar, in fact. And that, frankly, I believe him.)

But I figured this was a good place for some humor, anyway.

[Kosher Ham]

Can I call you Sal ?

 

I do indeed appreciate your input and discussion on this topic.

 

I just need you to understand that most of this debate is myth. I am perhaps as 'live your life' as KoolBlue13.

 

Like I previously stated I have been called many names over the years because people are unsure...but they have no idea. Never those names.

Perhaps in Canada it is different. In the US it seems very unlikely, and to me would be humorous if someone called me any of those things.

 

I also feel that even on a world view that most would not look at it that way.

 

It is and has been a football team name for so long that many including non-natives don't ever consider it even used in that way. I do not deny that the one posters' experiences are true. I sit here saying that no one in my family has ever been called a Redskin. EVER.

 

The word has perhaps changed. In a positive way, not negative.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

I have said it before, but I believe that NAs are a strong symbol of America, something unique to this land.  The use of NA iconography as representing "America" goes back at least to the Boston Tea Party.  I also think that the Indian way of life always has had some appeal to many people as an alternative to our ownership society, the ideal of living in tune with nature and being free to roam.

 

Which is why we utterly wiped out that civilization.

 

It's as if we were so in awe of it that we had to destroy it. And then honor it.

[RedskinsFan44]

Which is why we utterly wiped out that civilization.

 

It's as if we were so in awe of it that we had to destroy it. And then honor it.

We did it for money and greed, same reason we do lots of nasty and destructive things.  We kept pushing them onto land we did not want until we ran out of land we did not want. Lots of people love nature too.

 

Add:  This propensity is hardly limited to people of European descent, NAs were hired to help wipe out the buffalo.  You can find instances of people doing horrendous things for money and power all over the world.

[Zguy28]

Which is why we utterly wiped out that civilization.

 

It's as if we were so in awe of it that we had to destroy it. And then honor it.

How many did you wipe out?

[Salistala]

It is and has been a football team name for so long that many including non-natives don't ever consider it even used in that way. I do not deny that the one posters' experiences are true. I sit here saying that no one in my family has ever been called a Redskin. EVER.

 

 

Maybe it's only in the beautiful state of Montana.

 

I've experienced many times where I put myself in some danger. Commercial fishing, adrenaline vacationing in dangerous spots, etc. The fear I felt in Missoula as we were being followed by those good ol' boys was freaking awful. Like we were going to end up on a lost poster, or an unexplained one-car accident.

 

When that waitress told us in that dry monotone to leave, and to be called a ****ing redskin out loud and without any fear of reprisal, was otherworldly. It happened once, and it will stay with me for the rest of my life.

 

There are racists in Canada, they are legion. And they use slurs as casually as the waitress did. Just not that one, and you're kind of prepared for it here with the words they choose.

 

My point is the word is a slur, whether or not it is used nationwide is up for debate. You certainly haven't heard it, maybe others have.

[Bonez3]

Sal, we're gonna agree to disagree. Because my point is, it isn't a slur.

[RFKFedEx]

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?

 

It's an unintentional celebration of manifest destiny.

 

Blackface comedy wasn't intended to be hateful. It was supposed to be harmless fun. But then our society realized it wasn't cool anymore. Native sports themes are going down the same road.

 

Frat house margarita parties make national news today when kids get out of hand with their sombreros and fake mustaches.

[Larry]

My point is the word is a slur, whether or not it is used nationwide is up for debate.

And my point is that you do not possess the regal power of royal decree to announce that because a word was used in one way, against you, once, that this somehow allows you to wave your hand and pronounce that the word, in all uses, in all contexts, in all places, is a slur. And somehow beyond debate.

Quoting a line from a TV show that I used to show Mom a whole lot of times . . . .

Our Universe consists of billions and billions of galaxies. Each of them containing billions and billions of stars. Orbited by trillions and trillions of planets. And all of then circling around exactly one point in the Universe.

That point, is not you.

[Destino]

Interesting note about the sombreros and fake mustaches at frat margarita parties. In my experience and asking other Latino immigrants, no one gives a damn about that. It's Much more likely to for American Hispanics (those born and raised here) to think that's offensive. I think they'd die of culture shock if they went to Latin America and tried to apply American racial standards.

I say this because it's assumed that these things are offensive objectively when in reality a lot of this is American cultural etiquette.

[RedskinsFan44]

It's an unintentional celebration of manifest destiny.

 

Blackface comedy wasn't intended to be hateful. It was supposed to be harmless fun. But then our society realized it wasn't cool anymore. Native sports themes are going down the same road.

 

Frat house margarita parties make national news today when kids get out of hand with their sombreros and fake mustaches.

Colonists dressing up as Mohawks at the Boston Tea Party to send a message to the English predates Manifest Destiny.

[Salistala]

That point, is not you.

 

Thanks for knocking me down a couple of notches there Larry, may I call you Larry? The rarefied air up there was getting to my head. You see I was getting the delusion that it was up to me and only me to make that declaration and not the thousands of others who have been stating the exact same thing.

 

The center of the Universe argument can easily flipped to show that it's not up to you to declare the word safe for non-offensive use. I get that you are NA (and that your brother isn't due to a redefinition of membership criteria), but just as I can't make the declaration by myself neither can you dismiss it on your own.

 

It's the identifying name of a tribal group in an arena carrying a talisman while trying to penetrate the opponents defenses to score a metaphorical victory. Or it's a bunch of guys running around a field with a ball trying to score more points than the other team. It's not really life or death, sports haven't been life or death for a few hundred years. Even if sometimes it seems that way as portrayed by your national media.

 

So I don't think it needs a test with extremely stringent standards to make a statement of its offensiveness, or lack thereof.

 

I just think, me and only me with virtually no authority whatsoever to make any binding pronouncements, that if there are people that wish Washington's football team were known as something else less hurtful to them that those people that care about their teams rep would a least consider an alternative.

[Larry]

Thanks for knocking me down a couple of notches there Larry, may I call you Larry? The rarefied air up there was getting to my head. You see I was getting the delusion that it was up to me and only me to make that declaration and not the thousands of others who have been stating the exact same thing.

 

The center of the Universe argument can easily flipped to show that it's not up to you to declare the word safe for non-offensive use.

Good thing that I've never once done so.

And I'm shocked that you've expanded your assertion that "the word is a slur" (with no support whatsoever) to "the word is a slur" (according to me and the people who agree with me).

Still, I suppose it's progress to go from "it's a slur" to "it's a slur, according to some people".

Heck, another big shift like that and maybe you'll admit that the people who don;t agree with you have opinions that count, too.

Unfortunately, Native Americans (the group. The whole group. Not just the ones who agree with you. No, not "every single individual member of the group". But yeah, "an overwhelming majority of the group, as a whole") say that the name of the football team is not offensive.

You don't have the authority to speak for them.

I don't have the authority to speak for them.

Thousands of people who agree with you don't have the authority to speak for them.

Because there are millions of them who have said otherwise.

 

You have the authority to speak for yourself. 

 

(And I'm glad that you do.  And often rather well.  And I respect, and sympathize with, your feelings.  And I, further, assume that there are hundreds, probably thousands, of people standing behind you, with feelings and experiences which are not identical, but similar to yours.  That you do speak at least partially for a much larger group.) 

 

In short, I assume that you are not "just one person", either.  (And have argued similar things, through this thread.) 

 

Curiously, I'm not sure if I've ever seen you so much as admit that the group of Natives who are not offended, even exist.  Let alone that they outnumber those who are, by 10 to 1.  I certainly don't think I've seen you (or any of the other name changers) admit that their votes count, too. 

[Bonez3]

Sal, what about Indians? Should they change their name?