Commander PK Posted October 23, 2013 Share Posted October 23, 2013 Actually your position is void of any tangible evidence or support. The disparaging and offensive folks can rely on several centuries of use of the term in literature, historical documents? Where is this literature? Where are these documents? I would like to take a look at them myself. Who "knows" what it means outside of D.C? again, we are talking about changing the name of a team that has been in use for 80 years. You need more than just "We have decided, just now, that the term is disparaging and offensive" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMS Posted October 23, 2013 Share Posted October 23, 2013 The post burgundyrush was temp-banned for previously did just that. "Not too surprised Redskins has so many racists fans. There is a reason this team is loved by so many below the Mason-Dixon Line. If a name change can drive those kind of people away then I'm all for it." UnWise Mike has alluded to it many times as well. Many others in the media have called the team the Washington Racist Names or Racists, what would that imply about fans defending the name? Yeah but that's only because their is a vast conspiracy of Cowboy fans who control the media. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ellis Posted October 23, 2013 Share Posted October 23, 2013 You haven't looked then because a quick visit to the dictionary would have provided you with the evidence which has elluded you... It's not whether the term was invented as a slur, and have existed down through time as a slur. These are undeniable facts. It's also not whether the NFL team doesn't use it as a slur. From what I can determine the only thing that matter is whether enough native Americans are offended by the teams use of this once offensive term. You can't make money by trademarking offensive terms.... Do enough native Americans find the use of this term offensive. For the THIRD TIME in this thread... I will post this... http://anthropology.si.edu/goddard/redskin.pdf The origin of the word/term "redskin", as cited in the dictionary, is based on complete bull****. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commander PK Posted October 23, 2013 Share Posted October 23, 2013 For the THIRD TIME in this thread... I will post this... http://anthropology.si.edu/goddard/redskin.pdf The origin of the word/term "redskin", as cited in the dictionary, is based on complete bull****. I find this part particularly intriguing The court found that “the TTAB’s finding of disparagement is not supported by substantial evidence” and that “the doctrine of laches precludes consideration of the case.”1 One need not accept Harjo’s unfounded claim that the word redskin “had its origins in the practice of presenting bloody red skins and scalps as proof of Indian kill for bounty payments” 2 to accept that many (who exactly?) find the word objectionable in current use. But the actual origin of the word is entirely benign and reflects more positive aspects of relations between Indians and whites. It emerged at a specific time in history among a small group of men linked by joint activities that provided the context that brought it forth. Before its documented history can be traced, however, the false history given for it in standard reference books must be expunged. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grego Posted October 23, 2013 Share Posted October 23, 2013 For the THIRD TIME in this thread... I will post this... http://anthropology.si.edu/goddard/redskin.pdf The origin of the word/term "redskin", as cited in the dictionary, is based on complete bull****. Thanks Ellis. Was just going to post this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elkabong82 Posted October 23, 2013 Share Posted October 23, 2013 Actually your position is void of any tangible evidence or support. The disparaging and offensive folks can rely on several centuries of use of the term in literature, historical documents, and of coarse many popular modern dictionaries writen by folks without an ax to grind in this discussion.. What the term has meant and does mean outside of DC is not even worth discussion. It's a known. No actually I think that is the meat of this case. How many folks are offended and how many folks need to be offended to get the trademark vacated. I don't know quantitatively what that number would be, but certainly it would have to be in the tens of thousands even hundreds of thousands I would think. Again I agree with you. Inside of the DC metro area, never. Do you think If we were a native American Indians living on a reservation somewhere our answers might change? As I understand it it's their opinion which counts with regard to the trademark issue. The pro-team name folks can rely on the past 80 years usage of the word as a team name and show that the negative usage of the word has been long outdated. Ives Goddard of the Smithsonian showed the word was created by Native Americans as a descriptor, much like people use white and black today. There are Native American high schools using the team name as well. The Annenberg Poll is the only one that polled Native Americans on the name and as you know its results showed 90% in favor of the name. It's going to take a lot more evidence from the offended than simply a few of them being offended. In fact, Harjo and others have used the claim that the name comes from scalping Indians as one of their historical claims, yet they have no proof of such a claim at all and it has been denounced by Goddard and other historians as complete fiction. The dictionary term says "usually offensive" and "taboo," but the results of the poll and the majority Native American support are proof that such definitions are wrong. How can something be "usually offensive" when the vast majority of the effected people are not usually offended? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grego Posted October 23, 2013 Share Posted October 23, 2013 Interesting how he calls harjo out by name. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commander PK Posted October 23, 2013 Share Posted October 23, 2013 Who is the author of that study, and what are his qualifications? Ives Goddard is Senior Linguist in the Department of Anthropology, National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution. His research (there is that damn word again) has focused on the Algonquian languages, especially Munsee,Unami, Massachusett, and Meskwaki. Since 1990 he has been conducting fieldwork among the Meskwaki in Tama County, IA, aspart of a project to edit and translate the native-written Meskwaki manuscripts collected for the Bureau of American Ethnology by Truman Michelson in 1911 and the years following. He is the editor of Languages, vol. 17 of the Handbook of North American Indians (1996), and the compiler of the wall map Native Languages and Language Families of North America (1999). Author’s address: Smithsonian Institution MRC 100, P.O. Box 37012, Washington, DC 20013-7012. U.S.A. Interesting how he calls harjo out by name. Quite Probably because through this guys research and study he knows bull **** when he hears it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMS Posted October 23, 2013 Share Posted October 23, 2013 Where is this literature? Where are these documents? I would like to take a look at them myself. Who "knows" what it means outside of D.C? again, we are talking about changing the name of a team that has been in use for 80 years. You need more than just "We have decided, just now, that the term is disparaging and offensive" So is your position the term isn't used in literature, documents, or the dictionary for hundreds of years? See "The Redskins" by James Fedimore Cooper from 1849 http://www.amazon.com/The-Redskins-James-Fenimore-Cooper/dp/1434475891 I don't really even know what the rest of you are arguing. The term has no meaning beyond the NFL? The folks who write the Dictionaries are in some sort of political correct conspiracy against football teams? Nobody really even used the term prior to the Washington Team? If these are the intelectual depth of the affirmative arguments then we are really sunk..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grego Posted October 23, 2013 Share Posted October 23, 2013 Quite Probably because through this guys research and study he knows bull **** when he hears it. Also interesting- and unfortunate- that no one in the national media call her on her bull****. Or investigate ray halbritter. They just keep getting a voice as if their extreme views and/or vested interests represent most native Americans. Wacky , that is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commander PK Posted October 23, 2013 Share Posted October 23, 2013 from page 11 of that study. The Native American Sources of Redskin "It is clear from the earliest citations that redskin was regarded as an Indian expression" So is your position the term isn't used in literature, documents, or the dictionary for hundreds of years? See "The Redskins" by James Fedimoore Cooper http://www.amazon.com/The-Redskins-James-Fenimore-Cooper/dp/1434475891 never said once that it hasn't been used in literature or documents. I have failed to see any evidence produced that it is offensive and disparaging in nature by design, usage, and intent. In fact, see above. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grego Posted October 23, 2013 Share Posted October 23, 2013 I have a word we can look up in the dictionary. How about "grasping"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commander PK Posted October 23, 2013 Share Posted October 23, 2013 also, JMS, see the endless number of historical citations made by Ives Goddard in his study. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMS Posted October 23, 2013 Share Posted October 23, 2013 never said once that it hasn't been used in literature or documents. Actually you didn't say it hadn't been used in literature.... you said where has it been used in literature... Glad we are on the same page as JFC uses the term Redskins to reffer to folks drinking human blood, canabals, killing children and defenseless women. Nothing derogatory about that.... Noting that James Fedimore Cooper had never seen a wild Indian in his life ( born in NJ, served in the navy, died in NY) and no less of an authority as Mark Twain called his representation of American Indians nonsensical... Twain having grown up on the fronteer..... I have failed to see any evidence produced that it is offensive and disparaging in nature by design, usage, and intent. In fact, see above. That's because any evidence which you don't find pursasive you dismiss. Several popular dictionaries including one on originis of the language are absolutely evidence of how a term is used in our culture.. If it was a frying pan smacking you in the face you would deny it was such if it didn't have an egg in it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commander PK Posted October 23, 2013 Share Posted October 23, 2013 also, here is some info about the author of "The Redskins" since I can find no information about the Novel itself. No product reviews either. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Fenimore_Cooper#Works Cooper was one of the first major American Novelist to include African, African American and Native American characters in his works. In particular, Native Americans play central roles in his Leatherstocking tales. However, his treatment of this group is complex and highlights the tenuous relationship between frontier settlers and American Indians as exemplified in The Wept of Wish-ton-Wish, depicting a captured white girl who is taken care of by an Indian chief and who after several years is eventually returned to her parents.[49] Often, he gives contrasting views of Native characters to emphasize their potential for good, or conversely, their proclivity for mayhem. Last of the Mohicans includes both the character of Magua, who is devoid of almost any redeeming qualities, as well as Chingachgook, the last chief of the Mohicans, is portrayed as noble, courageous, and heroic. clearly...this man was a racist. Obviously, his portrayal of Natives ONLY as savage brutes is evidence of such. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMS Posted October 23, 2013 Share Posted October 23, 2013 also, JMS, see the endless number of historical citations made by Ives Goddard in his study. What are you suggesting Ives Goddard contributes to this discussion? Because for the life of my I am dumbfounded by why you keep bringing him up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commander PK Posted October 23, 2013 Share Posted October 23, 2013 Actually you didn't say it hadn't been used in literature.... you said where has it been used in literature... Oh my god... You knew what I meant. Good grief man. What are you suggesting Ives Goddard contributes to this discussion? Because for the life of my I am dumbfounded by why you keep bringing him up. Did you click on the link and read even the first page? Pray tell me JMS What are we discussing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGoodBits Posted October 23, 2013 Share Posted October 23, 2013 Actually you didn't say it hadn't been used in literature.... you said where has it been used in literature... Glad we are on the same page as JFC uses the term Redskins to reffer to folks drinking human blood, canabals, killing children and defenseless women. Nothing derogatory about that.... You made this up. Noting that James Fedimore Cooper had never seen a wild Indian in his life ( born in NJ, served in the navy, died in NY) and no less of an authority as Mark Twain called his representation of American Indians nonsensical... Twain having grown up on the fronteer..... JFC lived in upstate NY, home of the Oneida Nation.. Ironically enough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commander PK Posted October 23, 2013 Share Posted October 23, 2013 That's because any evidence which you don't find pursasive you dismiss. Several popular dictionaries including one on originis of the language are absolutely evidence of how a term is used in our culture.. If it was a frying pan smacking you in the face you would deny it was such if it didn't have an egg in it. Dictionary definitions are not evidence in and of themselves. You are really something. You fail to see how Ives Goddard plays into this discussion, but then you cite definitions in modern dictionaries as evidence. UNBELIEVABLE. ABSOLUTELY UNBELIEVABLE Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMS Posted October 23, 2013 Share Posted October 23, 2013 also, here is some info about the author of "The Redskins" since I can find no information about the Novel itself. No product reviews either. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Fenimore_Cooper#Works clearly...this man was a racist. Obviously, his portrayal of Natives ONLY as savage brutes is evidence of such. I didn't say all of his indian characters were savages. I will say that the savagery blood violence and agression Fedimore put into some of his indian characters was what made his books so noteworthy... and as I did say it was all bunk, according to mark twain. Here is Twain on Cooper.... It seems to me that it was far from right for the Professor of English Literature at Yale, the Professor of English Literature in Columbia, and Wilkie Collins to deliver opinions on Cooper's literature without having read some of it. It would have been much more decorous to keep silent and let persons talk who have read Cooper. Cooper's art has some defects. In one place in "Deerslayer," and in the restricted space of two-thirds of a page, Cooper has scored 114 offenses against literary art out of a possible 115. It breaks the record. http://twain.lib.virginia.edu/projects/rissetto/offense.html Oh my god... You knew what I meant. Good grief man. Yes when you said.. "Where is this literature? Where are these documents? I would like to take a look at them myself." I took it to mean you knew of no such use of the term Redskins in American Literature and would like to be presented with such..... Only after I did that did you now claim some more extistantial meaning to your utterance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commander PK Posted October 23, 2013 Share Posted October 23, 2013 Here is Twain on Cooper.... so you produce a book written by this man as evidence. Then you discredit him. and never once did I imply you could not find the term "Redskins" in literature or documentation. I said find some that is negative in nature. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TD_washingtonredskins Posted October 23, 2013 Share Posted October 23, 2013 I just read the Ives Goddard article from the Post (2005). This struck me as very interesting. In fact, the earliest usages of "redskin" that Goddard tracked down were in statements made in 1769 by Illinois tribal chiefs involved in delicate negotiations with the British to switch loyalties away from the French. "I shall be pleased to have you come to speak to me yourself," said one statement attributed to a chief named Mosquito. "And if any redskins do you harm, I shall be able to look out for you even at the peril of my life." The French used the phrase " peaux Rouges " -- literally "red skins" -- to translate the chief's words. By this time the original colonial designations of "Christian" and "Indian" were giving way to "white," "red" and, with the increase in slave traffic, "black": "Color didn't originate with Indian-white relations but with slavery," said University of Connecticut historian Nancy Shoemaker. "It is slavery that makes color seem to be a way to organize people." Like Goddard, Shoemaker said that by the end of the 18th century, Native Americans were using "red" to describe themselves and to assert their pride of being North America's original inhabitants. This doesn't mean that someone still couldn't be offended by the term/name, but it does lend a lot of weight to the original intent (and users) of the word. Here's the link to the full article...I apologize if this has already been contributed to the thread: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/02/AR2005100201139.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pjfootballer Posted October 23, 2013 Share Posted October 23, 2013 I thought it was Fenimore? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commander PK Posted October 23, 2013 Share Posted October 23, 2013 Show me something authentic that uses the term "Redskin" as a derogatory term. Simply referring to Natives as "Redskins" has not been shown to be inherently derogatory. Unless Natives were derogatory against themselves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMS Posted October 23, 2013 Share Posted October 23, 2013 You made this up. JFC lived in upstate NY, home of the Oneida Nation.. Ironically enough. Actually I didn't make this up... Mark twain stated as much in his lambasting of James Fenimore Cooper stories.... please read it's a funny review by one of Americas all time funnies authors.. I begin the quote a little way down because Twain knocks him generally around a little prior to beginning on his treatment of the Indians. Mark Twain on James Fedimore Cooper's portrayal of Indians. No, other Indians would have noticed these things, but Cooper's Indian's never notice anything. Cooper thinks they are marvelous creatures for noticing, but he was almost always in error about his Indians. There was seldom a sane one among them. The ark is one hundred and forty-feet long; the dwelling is ninety feet long. The idea of the Indians is to drop softly and secretly from the arched sapling to the dwelling as the ark creeps along under it at the rate of a mile an hour, and butcher the family. It will take the ark a minute and a half to pass under. It will take the ninety-foot dwelling a minute to pass under. Now, then, what did the six Indians do? It would take you thirty years to guess, and even then you would have to give it up, I believe. Therefore, I will tell you what the Indians did. Their chief, a person of quite extraordinary intellect for a Cooper Indian, warily watched the canal-boat as it squeezed along under him and when he had got his calculations fined down to exactly the right shade, as he judge, he let go and dropped. And missed the boat! That is actually what he did. He missed the house, and landed in he stern of the scow. It was not much of a fall, yet it knocked him silly. He lay there unconscious. If the house had been ninety-seven feet long he would have made the trip. The error lay in the construction of the house. Cooper was no architect. There still remained in the roost five Indians. The boat has passed under and is now out of their reach. Let me explain what the five did -- you would not be able to reason it out for yourself. No. 1 jumped for the boat, but fell in the water astern of it. Then No. 2 jumped for the boat, but fell in the water still further astern of it. Then No. 3 jumped for the boat, and fell a good way astern of it. Then No. 4 jumped for the boat, and fell in the water away astern. Then even No. 5 made a jump for the boat -- for he was Cooper Indian. In that matter of intellect, the difference between a Cooper Indian and the Indian that stands in front of the cigar-shop is not spacious. The scow episode is really a sublime burst of invention; but it does not thrill, because the inaccuracy of details throw a sort of air of fictitiousness and general improbability over it. This comes of Cooper's inadequacy as observer. http://twain.lib.virginia.edu/projects/rissetto/offense.html so you produce a book written by this man as evidence. Then you discredit him. and never once did I imply you could not find the term "Redskins" in literature or documentation. I said find some that is negative in nature. Well that's not at all what you said..... You literally said to show you because you would like to read it... And yeah the Redskins like all of James Fedimore Cooper's books has Indians doing the worst kinds of atrocities. Mark Twain certainly wasn't a fan, but Cooper goes down in history as one of the most popular and sucessful literary figures of his time... Certainly behind Twain. Indians running amuck killing white folk was JFC's bread and butter. making up stuff.... And yes the Redskins being the conclusion of the Littlepage Manuscripts (novel Anti-rent wars) was certainly no different.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.