Alaskins

The Official ES Redskins Name Change Thread---All Things Related to Changing the Team's Name Go Here

Recommended Posts

I challenge all of you reading this thread to google the following phrase:

 

"What is the plot of the novel "The Redskins" about"

 

and tell me what you notice.


Well that's not at all what you said.....    You literally said to show you because you would like to read it...

 

 

Ok, fine, so we can move on.  Let me rephrase this as clearly as possible then.

 

Please, show me evidence, of the term "Redskins" in historical literature, where the term itself is derogatory in nature.


Four pages in on that google search, and I have yet to find anything to do with Native Americans beyond the nickname controversy of the football team.  All the other articles have to do with...yup, you guessed it...the Washington Redskins football team.

 

so where does the disparaging and offensive part come in?


 

And yeah the Redskins like all of James Fedimore Cooper's books has Indians doing the worst kinds of atrocities.   That was JFC's bread and butter.   making up stuff about American Indians, 

 

Fine, but what does that prove about the term "Redskins"

Edited by Painkiller

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

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.

 

 

 

and from that same link

 

 

 

But while such bounty proclamations were issued as early as the mid-18th century, Harjo acknowledged that she has not found an early instance of "redskin" in such a context.

 

then how can she continue to present this information as truth?  Should we just take it at face value?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

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

 

I also found this interesting from the same article

 

 

 

For many Americans, both Indian and otherwise, the term "redskin" is a grotesque pejorative, a word that for centuries has been used to disparage and humiliate an entire people

 

lol  Where is the evidence this has been the case?

 

 

Papers submitted in the case against the football team documented humiliating movie references by Hollywood icons Eddie Cantor, Bob Hope, John Wayne, Jimmy Stewart and others. In "Northwest Passage," Spencer Tracy, as a colonial explorer who hates Indians, importunes a subordinate to "Get a redskin for me, won't you?"

The final message, Shoemaker suggested, is that "even if the Indians were the first to use it, the origin has no relationship to later use. What happened at the beginning doesn't justify it today."

 

so the term "Get a redskin for me, won't you" automatically means that the term is derogatory?  Even if the Natives coined the term and referred to themselves as "Redskins"

 

Actually, what happened at the beginning is important in understanding the context of the term.  Perhaps people are only offended, because they don't know, or don't care about that context?  

 

and Snyder is supposed to change the name because people are too lazy to do research (or read research by those that have) before passing judgment?

Edited by Painkiller

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For me, and I'm glad I had the time to debate this all day.  (rehabilitating a severe case of plantar fasciitis and heel spur certainly helped)

 

"Redskins" is most certainly racial in origin.  No question.  The term's origin definitely is "of or to do with race." 

 

but for all the chatter, I have yet to see prove that the term is derogatory or has been used in a derogatory manner at such great lengths that the Redskins should change their name as a public service.

 

Some people are definitely offended, but I am convinced more than ever that their offense is misplaced or other motives are at play. 1.) They think the term means something that it doesn't or never did.  2.) They are fans of other teams, or 3.) They are bored and have nothing better to do.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Is this a serious question? I find it hard to believe this is serious.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I find this part particularly intriguing

 

What about the use of the word Redskin as it appeared in the Los Angeles Herald in October 1897.  It was linked in Gyasi Ross' article on Deadspin.  

 

VALUE OF AN INDIAN SCALP

Minnesota Paid Its Pioneers a Bounty for Every Redskin Killed It Is not generally known. In latter day Minnesota history that the state treasury once paid out cash as bounties for Sioux Indian scalps, just as this andi many other states are now paying for wolf scalps. State Treasurer Koerner yesterday, in looking over the 1863 report of State Treasurer Charles Schaff,

I have seen no evidence at all that redskin refers to scalps but there is certainly plenty that shows it was used to refer to native americans, not ochre paint, and thus must refer to their skin color. There is also the frequently mentioned westerns, which I am entirely unfamliar with but never seem to be disputed. The point is the word was used to reference native americans as a race. If it is in fact a word that indicates a race the question becomes: is it considered a polite term?

Luckily I think this argument is losing steam and the media seemingly content with the amount of ink and lip service they've given it seem to be looking for the next controversy.

Edited by Destino

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What about the use of the word Redskin as it appeared in the Los Angeles Herald in October 1897.  It was linked in Gyasi Ross' article on Deadspin.  

 

The title is "Minnesota paid it's Pioneers a bounty for every Redskin killed."  

 

Yes, the article states "Redskins" killed and refers to scalping, but it also refers to "Sioux scalps" and other "Indian scalps" which infers "Redskins" were a descriptor about the people being killed not their "bloody red scalps."  Nor does the article produce evidence the scalps themselves were referred to as "redskins" as Harjo asserts.  

 

"Here, I brought you my Redskin now pay up."     

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, I had read claims that there was no written record of the word "Redskin" ever being used to refer to Natives (other than by themselves). 

 

But that article looks like, at least in 1897 California, yes, the term was used, to refer to the people. 

 

Now, Painkiller is correct (near as I can tell).  The article doesn't say that the word referred to the scalp.  But yeah, it definitely did refer to the people. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But yeah, it definitely did refer to the people. 

 

Which for me has never been in doubt.  The question has always been, was simply referring to Natives at large as "redskins" ever racist or derogatory in nature?  If the term Redskin was largely used as a racial slur?  Why are more Native Americans not offended by the term then?  

 

Are we implying they are just too stupid or uneducated to know?

 

There is no evidence I have seen yet to prove that the term was created or was used as a derogatory term i.e. the "N" word or some other racial epithet.  As I said much earlier in the thread.  "Redskins" is definitely racial...but that does not make it racist. 

and since this has been a day for posting definitions.  

 

 

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/racial?s=t

 

 

ra·cial

  [rey-shuhthinsp.pngthinsp.pngl]  Show IPA

adjective
1.
of, pertaining to, or characteristic of one race or the races of humankind.
2.
arising, occurring, or existing because of differences between races or racial attitudes: racial conflict;racial motivations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally, I think we have been conditioned at large to be absolutely terrified of anyone who may point out a legitimate difference in appearance between the races.  People are afraid of the term "Redskin" because of what they THINK it means, not because of what they know it means.  It is not inherently "Derogatory" in nature.

 

I am a white skinned man.   WHITE skinned man.  I'm not offended by the acknowledgement that my skin is white.  I've known my whole life I was white.  Some people of other races did not like me growing up, strictly because of what other "white" people did to many of other races years ago.  

 

it's ok to be white.  Just like it's ok to be black, red, or brown skinned.  None is greater than the other, which is the very definition of "racist."  Believing that others who don't look like you are inferior to you.  Find me any evidence that "Redskins" when used referred to the inferior Natives.

 

I don't think Natives were being "racist" when they coined the term "Pale Face" for white colonists.  I think they were just acknowledging that yes, absolutely, the colonists had "pale faces" when compared to their own face.  Something the colonist also knew for themselves I'm sure.

 

:)


and I can't resist...

 

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/pale+face?s=t

 

 

 

pale·face

  [peyl-feys]  Show IPA

noun
Slang. a white person, as distinguished from a North American Indian.
Origin: 
1815–25; pale1  + faceexpression attributed to North American Indians
 
Edited by Painkiller

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally, I think we have been conditioned at large to be absolutely terrified of anyone who may point out a legitimate difference in appearance between the races.  People are afraid of the term "Redskin" because of what they THINK it means, not because of what they know it means.  It is not inherently "Derogatory" in nature.

I do think you've got a point. That yes, we have been conditioned to, at the very least, give a heightened scrutiny to anything which so much as recognizes that sometimes there are differences between the races. Or even that races exist.

It's like, anybody who admits to noticing, gets looked at funny.

That said, though, I'm not certain that's a bad thing, either.

I think that the way our country has treated other races, and may well be treating them, today, indicates that yeah, there's a streak of racist in all of our characters.

I know it's in mine. (Despite the fact that I'm also aware that, compared to my father, I'm practically "color blind". And my father wasn't exactly Archie Bunker, either. But I'm still aware that the streak is there.)

I think that, just as we've established the legal concept that matters involving race ought to be subject to a heightened level of scrutiny, so other things racial ought to be, too.

Sometimes treating the races differently is justified. Some races are more prone to certain medical conditions, and I don;t think doctors should pretend to be ignorant of that when they're treating a patient.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When the 'red' began: http://www.twillingatenews.ca/twillingate-history/the-beothuk-indians-newfoundlands-red-ochre-people

 

An important aspect of Beothuk life was their use of red ochre – extracted from iron deposits – to coat their implements, bodies and the remains of the dead. The colour red played a role in Beothuk tribal identity; disgraced band members might be ordered to remove the colouring as a form of punishment. It is very likely that the red hues also had spiritual overtones for the people. This extensive use of ochre led Europeans to name the Beothuk the “Red Indians.”

 

Dishonor?

 

The NEW definition? 

 

Oh well, what would you expect from the person who insists it is... and her own definition of the Whiteman (and not just white, and not just a man) as 'the Disease' : http://web.archive.org/web/20071016013711/http://www.indiancountry.com/content.cfm?id=1094829740

 

And now for another historic perspective: http://www.coldhardfootballfacts.com/content/hail-to-the-redskins-nfl-must-save-name-image-legacy/25861/

Edited by BleedBNG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do think you've got a point. That yes, we have been conditioned to, at the very least, give a heightened scrutiny to anything which so much as recognizes that sometimes there are differences between the races. Or even that races exist.

It's like, anybody who admits to noticing, gets looked at funny.

That said, though, I'm not certain that's a bad thing, either.

I think that the way our country has treated other races, and may well be treating them, today, indicates that yeah, there's a streak of racist in all of our characters.

I know it's in mine. (Despite the fact that I'm also aware that, compared to my father, I'm practically "color blind". And my father wasn't exactly Archie Bunker, either. But I'm still aware that the streak is there.)

I think that, just as we've established the legal concept that matters involving race ought to be subject to a heightened level of scrutiny, so other things racial ought to be, too.

Sometimes treating the races differently is justified. Some races are more prone to certain medical conditions, and I don;t think doctors should pretend to be ignorant of that when they're treating a patient.

 

and I'm fine with all that, and you bring up an excellent point about certain races being more prone to certain medical conditions.  

 

For all the research and talking, no one has produced definitive evidence that the term "Redskin" is derogatory in nature.  I'm sure it would have been found by now.  I also don't think that Native's seem to be offended by the acknowledgment that their skin is red when compared to other races...just like mine is much paler than any of the other races.   Simple fact.  

 

If the day comes, where Natives at large and in large percentage have decided that they no longer feel the use of the name is appropriate, consider me 100% behind pressuring Dan Snyder, or some future owner to change the name of the team.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Oh well, what would you expect from the person who insists it is... and her own definition of the Whiteman (and not just white, and not just a man) as 'the Disease' : http://web.archive.org/web/20071016013711/http://www.indiancountry.com/content.cfm?id=1094829740

 

 

 

Wow...this woman calls us racists?

 

 

 

First, the Whiteman is no longer solely white or a man or a descendant of someone who killed our grandpas or stole our grandmas' lands. 

Second, the craziness and greed of the Whiteman that made him hate us because he did bad things to us is now a disease that blankets much of the legal system and popular culture, and infects many who never met us, historically or today. 

Third, a manifestation of this pathology is that the new whiteman (a.k.a., the Disease) must keep us in our place. Socially and economically, this means anywhere below everyone else's rung of the ladder. Physically, it means any place or thing the Disease does not want for itself. No matter how many times a Native nation or person may move to accommodate it, eventually the new whiteman will covet the new place. 

 

textbook reverse racism?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I don't buy the red ochre thing at all.  When I look up pictures of what that paint looked like it looks nothing like the redskins logo.  Is it your theory that the redskins logo is a native american wearing red ochre face paint?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Edit: You know what...nevermind.  I will let her comments speak for themselves.  

 

While the Disease continues in its obsession to make us over in its image and co-opt our imagery, it finds newer and cruder ways to maladapt and to silence our objections to its course, even going so far as to keep us from burying our ancestors and to tell our children lies about who we are. 


The prognosis is not as bleak as it once was. Many of us are not hosts to this pathology and are not in contact with its carriers. As we heal ourselves, we meet more non-Native people avoiding and repairing damage, too. The pathological takers have a big corner of the garden, but it's not the whole world and we won't catch the Disease if we don't go there. 

 

Edited by Painkiller

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I certainly don't feel like a disease and I don't plan on taking anything from a native american.  Then again I'm not viewing the world from the perspective of a people thoroughly and systematically destroyed.  I have no idea how long it takes that kind of cultural bitterness to work its way out.  It's certainly sheds some light on her motivations in all this though doesn't it.  It's not that Redskins is offensive, or at least not just that, it's that the "disease" is taking the likeness and name.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I certainly don't feel like a disease and I don't plan on taking anything from a native american.  Then again I'm not viewing the world from the perspective of a people thoroughly and systematically destroyed.  I have no idea how long it takes that kind of cultural bitterness to work its way out.  It's certainly sheds some light on her motivations in all this though doesn't it.  It's not that Redskins is offensive, or at least not just that, it's that the "disease" is taking the likeness and name.  

 

Des, there really is no way to excuse her opinion.  No way.  She sounds like Adolph Hitler describing Jews.  As I finished, I was almost waiting to hear her "final solution" to "the disease" problem.

 

Inexcusable, and I refuse to believe that if many supporting the name change were to read that article, that they would continue to support her.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Des, there really is no way to excuse her opinion.  No way.  She sounds like Adolph Hitler describing Jews.  As I finished, I was almost waiting to hear her "final solution" to "the disease" problem.

 

Inexcusable, and I refuse to believe that if many supporting the name change were to read that article, that they would continue to support her.

 

I'm not excusing it, it's downright scary.  I just don't know if its a natural outcome of whats happened because I have no ability to put myself in that particular set of shoes.  Also I'd take care with how you use genocide references given the subject matter.

 

My point was that there is no way to argue with someone that sees the world like Harjo over the name being insulting.  She makes it clear that her concern is really "the disease" appropriating her cultural icons.  Thus insulting or not she'd take issue with it on the grounds that all things native american are not to be infected by outsiders.  I doubt that argument would play as well on the radio though, would it?      

 

I wonder what Costas would say?  

Edited by Destino

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So if calling an American Indian a redskin is racist then wouldn't calling somebody white racist, because it inherently refers to the color of their skin? Or your one black friend? It's no longer ok to call him black?

Just because we don't call them white skins or black skins makes it ok? Even though that's exactly what we are talking about!

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So if calling an American Indian a redskin is racist then wouldn't calling somebody white racist, because it inherently refers to the color of their skin? Or your one black friend? It's no longer ok to call him black?

Just because we don't call them white skins or black skins makes it ok? Even though that's exactly what we are talking about!

 

It's a good point.

 

I also find it funny that Obama got involved (I realize that he was asked a direct question and simply answered it) considering a bureau within the Department of Interior (Buearu of Indian Affairs - BIA) uses an outdated term to describe Native Americans.

 

You'd think the government would want to clean up its own agencies before it concerns itself with private sports teams.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

that article by harjo is mind blowing.

 

i knew she was a radical,  but didnt know she was that far out there. 

 

so, this lunatic and a corrupt casino boss are the people we are up against. just checking, for the record. 

 

oh, and btw, given what we know about these 2 people spearheading this movement. shouldnt this be over by now?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

susan harjo is to native americans what elijah muhammed was to african americans. read 'message to the blackman' and tell me it isnt the same. 

 

psychotic, racist paranoid delusions of a so called enlightened, self appointed leader of a race. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

that article by harjo is mind blowing.

 

i knew she was a radical,  but didnt know she was that far out there. 

 

so, this lunatic and a corrupt casino boss are the people we are up against. just checking, for the record. 

 

oh, and btw, given what we know about these 2 people spearheading this movement. shouldnt this be over by now?

It should've been, a couple months ago, when our owner said, "NEVER." 

I'm a bleeding heart liberal, but am not on board with most of the "I'm offended" crap.  Don't like watching a mother breastfeed?  That's why your neck has mobility.  Move it , don't stare and say, "That's repulsive!" 

If your neck doesn't have mobility, your eyelids do.  Blinking is both involuntary, and voluntary.  Use your senses for all that they're worth, and then get over it. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.