RFKFedEx Posted June 12, 2014 Share Posted June 12, 2014 This is hilarious. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GTwFrFQpjpQ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kosher Ham Posted June 12, 2014 Share Posted June 12, 2014 Who cares if you are liked, if you are right ? The weak people that won't stand up for what is right, that's who. Do you feel the need to be liked ? I am as just as much of a jerk in real life as I am here. For some odd reason, people always tell me they love my honesty. Well...those people are just as crazy as the rest of us including you for knowingly breaking the PC rules. No one would name a team something that was widely considered a slur. It's existed for over 80 years now as the name. Snyder is right. It's a witch hunt. It's silly of the tribes or media to go for this as a trophy. What do you win ? He still owns the team, he still owns a team worth likely 2B these days. Natives don't win either. We lose a team that serves as a proud team moniker/name, a team that honors the history. It's a pitiful way to approach the whole thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lombardi's_kid_brother Posted June 12, 2014 Share Posted June 12, 2014 We don't use "Chinaman" any more. Well, perhaps you don't...... Now is Aunt Jemima as insensitive as Redskin? I think it can be. I think everyone is probably getting too focussed on the word itself. It's clearly a weird, anachronistic word that is defined by the dictionary as offensive. It's also probably only ever used at this point in relation to the football team. (Though, can you imagine if that Tom Landry commercial where he finds himself "surrounded by Redskins" came out today? Good gravy). The word is problematic.But there is also the issue of cultural appropriation and turning that culture into a charicature or a cartoon. Does anyone remember Sambos Restaurants? I ate at one once. I think that is probably the closest example of what is happening to the Redskins. Though, the Redskins are certainly not going to vanish completely. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sambo's Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
codeorama Posted June 12, 2014 Share Posted June 12, 2014 There is a "town" close to where I live that is 99% white people. Most of the black kids that I grew up with and even kids today view that "town" as a racist place. When I was in middle school, my mom worked part time at the 7-11 in that "town". The locals are very tightknit and I remember my mom telling me that they used the word "sambo" for black people as well as "boofer". That was one of my first life experiences with racism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted June 12, 2014 Share Posted June 12, 2014 (Though, can you imagine if that Tom Landry commercial where he finds himself "surrounded by Redskins" came out today? Good gravy). I don't think it would be a problem at all. He's obviously using a word that was artificially picked, to make the commercial more ironic. (And, remember, the object of the commercial is to give the audience hints as to who the mystery person is. In Robert Ludlum's commercial (in a trenchcoat, on the Orient Express), he mentioned that his American Express card is useful as a form of identification "if I should be forced to reveal my Bourne Identity".) And he's obviously referring to the football team. The "redskins" are wearing Redskins uniforms. (I've always wondered if they were actual Redskins players.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonez3 Posted June 12, 2014 Share Posted June 12, 2014 I never really gave much creedance to the idea that if we do change the name it will empower the word as a slur. However, this campaign has done just that to me. Frankly, nobody has produced a single objective piece of evidence it was evr a slur. But if this goes through... Boom 'R word'. Shame really The current campaign to 'change the mascot' doesn't even apply to the 'slur' argument, which is the basis. More PC crap. I'm convinced subjectively that the change the mascot drivers are people I simply wouldn't care to hear their opinion on anything- whether they were NA, Caucasian, AA, Eskimo or Martian. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted June 12, 2014 Share Posted June 12, 2014 Frankly, nobody has produced a single objective piece of evidence it was evr a slur. You mean, other than, say, the people posting in this very thread that they, personally, have had that word used as a slur? I think it's pretty obvious that the phrase "The Washington Redskins" isn't offensive. (Neither intended to be one, nor perceived as one.) But I also think it's blindingly obvious that the word "redskin" absolutely can be, and, on rare occasions, is, used as one. (Both intended to be one, and perceived as one.) That isn't the word's most frequent usage. But that usage isn't zero, either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonez3 Posted June 12, 2014 Share Posted June 12, 2014 Yea man- I don't buy into word of mouth. And if using anecdotal examples, I feel substitute the word Indian, Brave or Chief and the likely context would be same. But again, I'm not there and I don't know. So I'll stick to what can be legit proven Racism can incorporate alot of semantics. Prove to me Redskins is used consistently over anything else But again, I would need to find some objective data. Hell, if its that much a slur, how come its so damn difficult to prove. Not like the N word, which is undeniable. I get it CAN be a slur... What cant Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted June 12, 2014 Share Posted June 12, 2014 Yea man- I don't buy into word of mouth. Then the reason why I should pay any attention to you is . . . . ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonez3 Posted June 12, 2014 Share Posted June 12, 2014 No reason, I stated before my opinion has no effect in this. FedEx and Pepsi does. I love the Skins and feel its not a slur. I'm just throwing 2 cents away. Hope others agree Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boss_Hogg Posted June 12, 2014 Share Posted June 12, 2014 The fact that the Skins have hired a lobbyist makes me believe they know something we don't. This coild be a desperation move to save the team's name. The name is going to change, this battle was lost the moment Snyder callously said "I'll never change the name!, Never! You can put that in CAPS!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Califan007 The Constipated Posted June 12, 2014 Share Posted June 12, 2014 My overall perception of the name change debate: - Both sides have some legitimate and valid arguments to make, even if they're not being made that often in the press or public. - The media rarely, if ever, presents the pro-Redskin side in a valid or legitimate way. And when they do, it's never with the same zeal and authority as the anti-Redskin side is presented. - The pro-redskin side has a wealth of provable facts to back their stance that almost none in the media either knows about or cares about. - The whole "Redskin is rooted in scalping Native Americans for money" argument has surprisingly taken a back seat now in the debate. The reality that there's nothing whatsoever linking the term Redskin to that barbaric act centuries ago must have finally started soaking into the mainstream consciousness. If there were evidence of this being true, the name would have been changed the very next day. - Along those lines, the initial plan of attack--to repeat ad nauseam the scalping story and that 'redskin' has always been a racial slur throughout this country's history--has started losing its effectiveness. There's so little--if any--evidence of either stance being true that it's was doomed to be effective for only a short time. - The new plan of attack, that "Regardless of it's history, NA's don't like the term now and don't want to continue to be referred to as redskins by anybody", would have been the best way to have started this entire movement: "We understand the history that 'Redskins' has, both as a term used among our ancestors and as an identifier for Washington's football team. We also understand how some Natives over the years have taken pride in having our culture connected to such a successful franchise and we appreciate the various beneficial moments shared between the Redskins and the Native American community over the team's history. But we also think it's time to retire the name, as we have done ourselves within our community. Here's why..." That would have been the wiser, and more effective, stance to take from the beginning. Instead, the activist mindset on the anti-Redskin side decided to try and publicly shame the Skins franchise into changing the name by using demonizing rhetoric and unprovable "facts" to back up their exaggerrated claims of the word's history. Didn't work, although it did get some naive media members to help take up the torch for awhile. Taking that avenue just made the pro-Redskis side defensive. - Changing the name is not inevitable. Far from it, in fact. Stop thinking that's a legitimate reason to champion doing so. - Also, stop insisting that Redskin is the equivalent of the "N-word". It's not. Never has been, never will be. And there are significant reasons why that is. - If anyone did an expose on Suzan Harjo, I mean a real one, she'd disappear from the national discussion on all this...and it would be a noticeable blow to the anti-Redskin side. - I believe that since the majority of NA's don't care if the Redskins keep or change their name, you won't find any real or concentrated movement among their population to give a pro-Redskin voice to the Indian community. The motivation isn't there if you don't care either way. However, seeing a prominent group of NA's using a slogan of "Change it. Don't change it. We don't really give a ****." would be awesome lol... - When pressed to explain exactly why we should all view 'Redskin' as a racial slur, the answers always come down to this: "Because Native Americans think it is." When asked what to think if the majority of NAs were found to not be offended by the term, the answer always comes down to this: "If 20% of Native Americans are offended, isn't that enough?"...There is a TON wrong with both of those answers. - In addition, "It refers to a race by their skin color" isn't the definition of "racist". - George Preston Marshall being racist in no way, shape or form, helps validate the "Redskin is a racial slur" argument. There have been national writers that I respect making the claim that it does, though...*shaking my damn head* - Just an aside, putting the word "dirty" in front of the word "redskin" does not show that redskin is a racial slur. Yes, this is one of the pieces of "evidence" provided by the anti-Redskin side. The word should be considered a slur regardless of what's put in front of it. I've heard the phrase "dirty Mexican" used, both in film and in person. Does that mean that "Mexican" is now a racial slur? - ^^No, you wouldn't call your team the Washington Mexicans, but only because doing so would be seen as insensitive...you could call your team the Canadians and nobody would bat an eye. The insensitive aspects come into play when the name used is either seen as marginalizing a minority or giving an air of accepted supremacy to a majority. - ^^That's what a lot of this argument is over...whether or not using Native American names and imagery by default marginalizes the Indian community. It's not about Redskin is a racial slur or Indian scalping or "dirty redskin" or any of that. The Redskins are the biggest domino...the thinking is, get us to fall and the rest will fall as well. - There is no monolithic Native American voice in all of this. - Losing trademark protection for the name "Redskins" does not mean the team has to change their name, nor does it mean they no longer have any exclusive rights to the name "Redskins". - Politicians signing a letter against the name 'Redskins' means abso-stinkin-lutely nothing. City counsels passing resolutions to ask the Redskins to change their name means abso-stinkin-lutely nothing. Sportswriters saying they will no longer use the name "Redskins" in their articles means abso-stinkin-lutely nothing. Posturing means abso-stinkin-lutely nothing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patrick Evidente Posted June 12, 2014 Share Posted June 12, 2014 I feel that if the name is changed, people will use the term "Redskin" more negatively. What was once a term used to refer to an NFL team will now be used against the Natives. The public have just added another slur to be used. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
codeorama Posted June 12, 2014 Share Posted June 12, 2014 Why isn't the word redskin a NA equivalent of the N word? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gamebreaker Posted June 12, 2014 Share Posted June 12, 2014 Great post Califan007. Especially about Harjo, I've seen her written statements about white people and frankly if anyone is a racist in this debate it's her. http://web.archive.org/web/20071016013711/http://www.indiancountry.com/content.cfm?id=1094829740 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Califan007 The Constipated Posted June 12, 2014 Share Posted June 12, 2014 Why isn't the word redskin a NA equivalent of the N word? The incredibly short version: The "N-word" was used for centuries to subjugate and terrorize Black Americans. "Redskin" is, at most, politically incorrect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gamebreaker Posted June 12, 2014 Share Posted June 12, 2014 Why isn't the word redskin a NA equivalent of the N word? Well for starters, African Americans didn't create the N word as a descriptor for themselves. It was created by those who enslaved them. Natives created the term Redskin to define themselves when speaking with white settlers. The difference is easy to understand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Califan007 The Constipated Posted June 12, 2014 Share Posted June 12, 2014 Great post Califan007. Especially about Harjo, I've seen her written statements about white people and frankly if anyone is a racist in this debate it's her. http://web.archive.org/web/20071016013711/http://www.indiancountry.com/content.cfm?id=1094829740 There is SO much about Harjo that could be reported and written about, that would put her in an extremely negative light. Just like there's a ton that could be written about both the Redskins and Snyder (along with previous owners not named Marshall) that could put them in an extremely positive light. Neither has (or probably will) happen, though. Doing so doesn't fit the prescribed media template of Redskins=Slur, Snyder=Evil. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZRagone Posted June 12, 2014 Share Posted June 12, 2014 Why isn't the word redskin a NA equivalent of the N word? The only way you could say they are "equivalent" is if you're suggesting ALL slurs are equivalent. In which case it then brings the question of peoples legitimacy on arguing this point if they're not including the Yankee's in their argument. The word Redskin was a term whose origins trace back to Native Americans themselves using it as a means of referring to themselves as a group. The origins of the N-Word is one where those external to blacks created the word to refer to them. A large number of predominantly native american schools have chosen and welcomed the name as a mascot and moniker. I'd challenge you to find a single predominantly black school in this country whose mascot or name is the N-words. While it's frequent use in a subset of African American culture, no where is it used in such a broad societal way as a school's name. The frequeny of use and societal knowledge of the n-word as a slur, comparitive to Redskin, is significantly greater. Used outside of members of said group, the N-words use in culture and society today is almost singularly used either as a slur or in discussing a slur. The vast majority of times "Redskin" is uttered in our society today it's used to reference a football team. A white person walking down the street and then pointing and shouting "N-WORD" is likely to cause people to think he's pointing out a black person in a negative way. A white person walking down the street and then pointing and shouting "REDSKIN" is likely to cause people to think RG3 is just across the way. The N-Word and Redskin are SIMILAR in that both HAVE been used as a slur. Suggesting they're "equivalent" is like like saying tepid and scalding are equivilent because they both deal with temperatures. It's like saying Boogerface and C-sucking MF'ing A-Hole are "equivilent" because they're both insults. It's like saying the Jacksonville Jaguars and the New England Patriots are "equivilent" because they're both football teams (to bring it back home to a football forum ). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spearfeather Posted June 12, 2014 Share Posted June 12, 2014 The incredibly short version: The "N-word" was used for centuries to subjugate and terrorize Black Americans. "Redskin" is, at most, politically incorrect. ... and using a historical reference, when the Boston Braves signed three " Indian " players ( as the headline read ) in the summer of '33, they were described in the article as " three noble redskins ", Messrs ( plural of Mister ) David Ward, Orien Crow, and Cloquel Thompson. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
codeorama Posted June 12, 2014 Share Posted June 12, 2014 The incredibly short version: The "N-word" was used for centuries to subjugate and terrorize Black Americans. "Redskin" is, at most, politically incorrect. btw, I agreed with most of what you posted. I have personally witnessed the use of the word redskin to demean NA's. I know I'm not the only one. Maybe on this board, but others have as well. The use of the word as a slur against NA's is one of the reasons some NA's don't like the team name. I think it's reasonable to assume that particularly in the past, the word was used more commonly as a slur. IMO, a big issue is that "we" feel bad about how AA's were treated but for the most part, could care less how NA's were treated. Also, regarding another post, I don't think we know for 100% sure that the word redskin was an invention of NA's. Sure, there are examples of some that say that. But there are examples of those that do not agree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Califan007 The Constipated Posted June 12, 2014 Share Posted June 12, 2014 btw, I agreed with most of what you posted. I have personally witnessed the use of the word redskin to demean NA's. I know I'm not the only one. Maybe on this board, but others have as well. The use of the word as a slur against NA's is one of the reasons some NA's don't like the team name. I think it's reasonable to assume that particularly in the past, the word was used more commonly as a slur. IMO, a big issue is that "we" feel bad about how AA's were treated but for the most part, could care less how NA's were treated. Also, regarding another post, I don't think we know for 100% sure that the word redskin was an invention of NA's. Sure, there are examples of some that say that. But there are examples of those that do not agree. 1) The "N-word" wasn't merely used to demean Black Americans, though. Its history suggests it's far more than simply a racial slur. 2) We have about a kabillion times more evidence that the terms "red man" and "red skin" originated from Native Americans themselves as self-descriptors than we have evidence that the term "Redskin" originated elsewhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grego Posted June 12, 2014 Share Posted June 12, 2014 Great post Califan007. Especially about Harjo, I've seen her written statements about white people and frankly if anyone is a racist in this debate it's her. http://web.archive.org/web/20071016013711/http://www.indiancountry.com/content.cfm?id=1094829740 thanks for posting that. ive been meaning to dig up some of her bizarre ramblings, but keep getting sidetracked. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grego Posted June 12, 2014 Share Posted June 12, 2014 Also, regarding another post, I don't think we know for 100% sure that the word redskin was an invention of NA's. Sure, there are examples of some that say that. But there are examples of those that do not agree. goddards credentials, along with his neutrality on the issue and his obvious exhaustive research lead me to believe him over susan harjos flapping gums. remember, shes the same lady that claims 'squaw' is a slur that somehow refers to a native american womans lady parts, and based on her bizarre, unsubstantiated claim, got the word removed from some books. google that one for some laughs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrypticVillain Posted June 12, 2014 Share Posted June 12, 2014 I understand that not everybody wants to listen to some dude yap for thirty minutes, but man, this was very entertaining. Would like to see what y'all thought about it too. He made some good points. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XLG5RmUvrzs#t=466 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.