Lombardi's_kid_brother Posted October 30, 2013 Share Posted October 30, 2013 What are common slurs for Native Americans? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
respectgibbs Posted October 30, 2013 Share Posted October 30, 2013 That conversation begins with acknowledging and understanding wny these folks are legitamately offended.. Because it's the "in" thing to be offended about right now. That's why they're "offended". Perhaps, maybe, 50-100 people on earth are legitimately offended by the term. Perhaps they were called such a name in the past in a disparaging way. They're probably older, because sure as hell no one uses it today in a derogatory manner. The others that are offended? Well, it's not legitimate, personal offense they're taking, that's for sure. They're offended for an imaginary group of others that don't want it. And if it's 100 people, is that enough to change the name? I'd say no. Sorry, but no. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMS Posted October 30, 2013 Share Posted October 30, 2013 yes really. Hymie is not really an obscure term. You're already way off on the wrong foot. But it's a jewish name? It's what they call themselves.. How could they be offended? But yes you are correct. Hy·mie [hahy-mee] Show IPA noun Slang: Disparaging and Offensive. a Jew. Origin: Hym(an) or Yiddish khaim a male personal name (< Hebrew ḥayyīm literally, life) + -ie http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Hymie?s=ts It's in every popular dictionary I consulted... and it says right in the definition that it's a slur. It's irrelivent that my experience has not brought me into proximity of folks using this term as a racial epitaph. Nor would my ignorance really be the deciding factor in how somebody who was offended by the use of this term should mitigate their outrage. No, my position is we ought to listen to the people who this supposedly offends, which they don't. this offends a very small minority of that particular culture, and every study that has been made has shown that the majority of the Native American populace do not find it offensive. Yes and we can begin that conversation by informing these redskins they have no right to be offended if they are really offended and not just pretending.. Then i would suppose over the last twenty years or so they'd have been able to prove it in a court of law, but they can't, and they lose.Quit ignoring that. Litte Misleading there. Only they didn't bring a court case because that's not where you would fight this fight. They brought a case before the FTC to vacate the trademark, and won it... The FTC found the term Redskins was a Slur..... It was the lower Federal Court which over turned this ruling. They did not find the Redskins name not to be disparaging and a slur.... They federal court found that the defendents who brought the case were too far removed from their eighteenth birthday and thus didn't have standing to bring the suit before the FTC. Something the Lawyers for these tricky redskins predicted by already having a parallel case filed before the FTC involving 18, 19, and 20 year old redskins which is about to vacate our trademark protection for second time. No one really cares about the dictionary, Yes when discussing the definition of a term in popular culture the dictionaries (all of them) can be such misleading tools. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMS Posted October 30, 2013 Share Posted October 30, 2013 Because it's the "in" thing to be offended about right now. That's why they're "offended". Perhaps, maybe, 50-100 people on earth are legitimately offended by the term. Perhaps they were called such a name in the past in a disparaging way. They're probably older, because sure as hell no one uses it today in a derogatory manner. The others that are offended? Well, it's not legitimate, personal offense they're taking, that's for sure. They're offended for an imaginary group of others that don't want it. And if it's 100 people, is that enough to change the name? I'd say no. Sorry, but no. Or because it's not our wish to offend anyboy and we aren't using the term as James Fenimore Cooper used the term in the early 1800's in the title of his novel "Redskins"... We are not using the term as Jimmy Stewart, John Wayne or more recently Timothy Olyphantit or Ian McShane used it In the movies or TV. We are not using it as it is defined in the dictionary. Our Redskin is a role model, a symbol of pride and strength and respect and we want to take the opprotunity to say that. One of those two.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGoodBits Posted October 30, 2013 Share Posted October 30, 2013 Or because it's not our wish to offend anyboy and we aren't using the term as James Fenimore Cooper used the term in the early 1800's in the title of his novel "Redskins"... We don't think of it that way and should take the opprotunity to demonstrate that. One of those two.. You keep bringing that up, yet you have failed to demonstrate that Cooper was using Redskins as a derogatory term. Based on my (limited) knowledge of Cooper, evidence would seem to point to the contrary, to me. But I'm not the one making the claim, so I'd be happy to be educated on exactly how much of a bigot Cooper was and his disdain for NAs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrypticVillain Posted October 30, 2013 Share Posted October 30, 2013 Just went down to the local BK to get me a sammich. The girl behind the counter looked kinda skinny, so I said she looked like a hoe. Can't understand why she slapped the **** out of me. I told her I compared her to a garden tool. After all the dictionary doesn't say anything about it being some derogatory word. So I'm sure I'm right. The I said the manager looked like a fag. Dude kicked me in the nuts. He didn't know I was saying he looked tired from working hard. Sure, the sixth and last definition listed in the dictionary says "usually disparaging". But not before every other obscure usage nobody has ever heard. Funny how it's "usually offensive" but the last definition listed. Doesn't even mention "slang for homosexual". I'll tell those fags and hoes to get over it. Cuz I got the dictionary on my side, baby. Man I just burst out laughing in class. This caught me off guard lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KuNiT21 Posted October 30, 2013 Share Posted October 30, 2013 Good for Dan. I hope he sticks to his guns and NEVER changes the name. And hopefully someone makes it clear to NBC that we watch Sunday Night Football for what it is, not to hear socialist propaganda spewed all over a sports game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elkabong82 Posted October 30, 2013 Share Posted October 30, 2013 Yes when discussing the definition of a term in popular culture the dictionaries (all of them) can be such misleading tools. Then why aren't you considering how Redskins is used in popular culture today? The dictionary defines Redskins as usually offensive to Native Americans. If this were true, then why does the only poll on the matter show 90% not offended and why are there Native American schools using Redskins as their team name? Why is 80% of the country in favor of us keeping the name if the term is "usually offensive?" In order for something to be "usually" offensive, it has to be usually offensive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nonniey Posted October 30, 2013 Share Posted October 30, 2013 Except no one does that, JMS, and that is the point all of you fail to understand. to be a slur, it must be USED as a slur. And no one does. You can't just make up situations and say "IF that happened, that's why it's offensive". . ~Bang I've been using this argument as well lately. Something else that needs to be pointed out is even historically it wasn't commonly used as a slur. Racists that didn't like American Indians just didn't use the term. (I believe Savages was the word they preferred). So yeah how can Redskins be a slur when no one uses it as a slur? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elkabong82 Posted October 30, 2013 Share Posted October 30, 2013 Or because it's not our wish to offend anyboy and we aren't using the term as James Fenimore Cooper used the term in the early 1800's in the title of his novel "Redskins"... We are not using the term as Jimmy Stewart, John Wayne or more recently Timothy Olyphantit or Ian McShane used it In the movies or TV. We are not using it as it is defined in the dictionary. Our Redskin is a role model, a symbol of pride and strength and respect and we want to take the opprotunity to say that. One of those two.. What matters more, a long outdated negative usage of a word or a positive usage of the word that has been around for decades? Was Jesse Jackson right when he said the Washington Wizards were offensive because the name is a rank in the KKK? With the Redskins, the original creation of the word was a positive one meant solely as a descriptor, much like people use black and white today (further proof is Oklahoma translates to red people), and today various Native Americans use it in similar reference and for sports teams of NA high schools. The only poll directly on the matter showed 90% not offended. The current usage matters far more than the long outdated usage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMS Posted October 30, 2013 Share Posted October 30, 2013 You keep bringing that up, yet you have failed to demonstrate that Cooper was using Redskins as a derogatory term. Based on my (limited) knowledge of Cooper, evidence would seem to point to the contrary, to me. But I'm not the one making the claim, so I'd be happy to be educated on exactly how much of a bigot Cooper was and his disdain for NAs. The Fenimore Novel "Redskins" is a story about an upper crust family who is being terrorized, cut off and murdered by a group of tenants ( see anti-rent movement) who identify themselves as “Injins.” and dress up on calico blankets. The leader of this group is named Seneca Newcome.... The Seneca people being an Indian tribe indigenous to New York who had been allies of the British during the American Revolution and subsequently not very popular with the early Americans. I don't know if James Fenimore Cooper cooper was a bigot for his time. If he was perhaps Thomas Jefferson was too then after all he used the term "the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions." In the declaration of independence. I think it's dangerous to judge historical figures based upon modern standards.... Having said that Fenimore's contemporary Mark Twain clearly thought Fenimore was an idiot who didn't know anything about writing or Native Americans. Twain calling on the distinction between the Indians he knew growing up on the frontier and "Fenimore Indians". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMS Posted October 30, 2013 Share Posted October 30, 2013 Then why aren't you considering how Redskins is used in popular culture today? Clearly in DC the term Redskins is used to reffer to the NFL team. As you say, it doesn't matter that the mascot as originally intended and implemented by the team was offensive and meant to be. Representing the redskins as blood thirsty savages dismembering the opponents and speaking pigeon english to boot. I guess early fans ( 1965 ) weren't sophisticates. All that matters is over the last 40 years we corrected and refined that racial slur to be a symbol of pride. All the white, black, Hispanic and Asian folks in DC agree on this and hell we really don't have many redskins in town to object anyway. I'm just not sure that if we were living on a reservation where the cleansed usage of the slur were not the main usage we encounter; we would still feel Ok with it. Changing the meaning of the historically insensitive racial slur in our minds to facilitate a billionaires business or a group of none native American feeling of social justice. As for the poll, clearly that is where the question lies if we are to have any hope of keeping our franchise name. I don't find the local CBS affiliate's "poll" conclusive. I hope we find a definitive poll and I hope the Trademark court finds that meaningful. As the Trademark law is written disparaging names can not be trademarked. It doesn't make a distinction that decades of social evolution have dissuaded folks from blatant racial intolerance making the terms more obscure. Obscurity doesn't leave the term up for redefinition. Clearly the term was and is a disparaging racial slur. Even if you discount dictionaries, literary works, TV, and Films.... The FTC has already ruled the name to be an offensive slur and no subsequent finding has challenged that fact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patrick Evidente Posted October 30, 2013 Share Posted October 30, 2013 Really ask yourself, would a predominantly black school really call themselves the "N***s"? Come on man. The N-Word and Redskins, don't take on the same meaning in this day and age. Not even close. Seriously, not even a little bit. End of thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destino Posted October 30, 2013 Share Posted October 30, 2013 Good for Dan. I hope he sticks to his guns and NEVER changes the name. And hopefully someone makes it clear to NBC that we watch Sunday Night Football for what it is, not to hear socialist propaganda spewed all over a sports game. Socialist? Really. When I think of the former USSR and China I think of nations extremely careful not to offend anyone. This issue needs less politics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted October 30, 2013 Share Posted October 30, 2013 The terms are both defined as racial slurrs in any reasonable dictionary you would care to consult. There are other racial slurs which not even members of the slighted community would use amonst themselves. Then perhaps you should start a charity for the purpose of giving free dictionaries to Native Americans, so that you can convince them that they are offended. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destino Posted October 30, 2013 Share Posted October 30, 2013 Or perhaps nobody ever used white, black, or yellow war paint for battle. Do you see face paint on the helmet logo? I don't. I also do not see a convincing argument that native Americans have referred to themselves, and have been referred to, as "red" entirely because of ochre war paint. If the logo had obvious face paint we'd have a much easier time winning this argument. Sadly it doesn't and this particular argument isn't going to work well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PCS Posted October 30, 2013 Share Posted October 30, 2013 Anyone else getting this kind of stuff in your travels? Of course, I'd figure such would be pretty related to various demographics of your local area. Fortunately, I run into plenty of non-whacked people who support us, too. On a smaller scale yes. At work and here in the neighborhood,(to a smaller extent),it's well known that I am a Redskins fan. The "controversy" is rarely brought up,but when it is it's usually called "stupid". I have one member of the crew I supervise who is one racist SOB and I cringe when the subject is brought up. At the same time,another member of the crew is a member of the local Washoe tribe and could "care less" about the whole thing. He's a Niners fan anyway. Few other members of the Washoe work where I do as well. One of them wanted to know where I got the Redskins lunch bag I bring so she and her family could get one too. Turns out the Redskins are their favorite team. I think maybe a few of the family are actually flying out for the game next month too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commander PK Posted October 30, 2013 Share Posted October 30, 2013 JMS, you are killing me with your dictionary definitions. I have in my possession a Webster's Dictionary copyrighted 1974. I looked up the term "Redskin" in the dictionary, and guess what I found...."Red Skin" - "a Native American Indian." PERIOD, that's it. What's the point? The definition of the term has been changed over recent years, to now include the "offensive" and "disparaging" part of it. The dictionary is not infallible. Definitions change over time. NOW, with that said...what evidence and research was done that all of these dictionaries have now found conclusive EVIDENCE that the term is offensive and disparaging? Native Americans have changed their opinions on the word? Where is the evidence that is the case? I took photos of the dictionary as proof, but I cannot post the photos right now. I will later on in this post. The term has not always been defined as offensive and disparging, and in 1974 the Webster's Dictionary did not define it as so. I ask again...what changed? Where is the evidence to endorse that change? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destino Posted October 30, 2013 Share Posted October 30, 2013 Was Jesse Jackson right when he said the Washington Wizards were offensive because the name is a rank in the KKK I'm happy to pretend he was if you think it would work. lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrypticVillain Posted October 30, 2013 Share Posted October 30, 2013 I'm happy to pretend he was if you think it would work. lol I know right lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commander PK Posted October 30, 2013 Share Posted October 30, 2013 I'm happy to pretend he was if you think it would work. lol zinger!!! lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destino Posted October 30, 2013 Share Posted October 30, 2013 zinger!!! lol You know despite all this drama I wouldn't be surprised if the DMV area, if polled, still identified the Wizards as the least popular local team name. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grego Posted October 30, 2013 Share Posted October 30, 2013 Man I just burst out laughing in class. This caught me off guard lol i know. right. so, i go across the street to the mickey D's. i loves my flame broiled whoppers, but i gotta have my mcchicken. i mean, its a dollar. so i say to the cashier, 'thats a good deal for a buck' and it got me thinking about my ****. i mean, i think about my **** when i think about chicken sandwiches, right? its a big ****- like, its won awards. i took it to the MoCo agricultural fair last year, and it won first prize on account of how big it was. so the cashier is kinda cute, so i say 'hey, do you think i could knock you up later cuz i'd like to show you my enormous, prize winning ****?" **** freaks out. tries to wrap the mop around my skull as the manager calls the cops. i'm like, 'look, i dont know what that hoes problem is. i'm just trying to go over to this broads house and show her my rooster'. manager looks at me like i'm nuts. cops come. take me away. but not before i take care of that mcchicken. i try explaining to the cop what happened- that i learned my words from the dictionary. he tells me i'm an idiot and that people dont actually talk that way. i told that uneducated son of a **** to get me a dictionary and i was gonna prove him wrong, by god. so he threw my ass in a holding cell. but before he did, i pulled a chris walken from pulp fiction and stuck my phone up my ass. thank god its a flip phone- not one of those big ass samsung galaxy s 4's. **** that. now, dont none of you ****s get funny and try to call me either cuz that **** is off. gotta conserve my battery. unless i can find someone who smuggled in a charger. anyway, tell that JMS dude its all his fault. dictionary definition, my ass. btw- anyone know the password for seven locks wifi? i'm not trying to use up all my data. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commander PK Posted October 30, 2013 Share Posted October 30, 2013 You know despite all this drama I wouldn't be surprised if the DMV area, if polled, still identified the Wizards as the least popular local team name. Of this...I have no doubt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commander PK Posted October 30, 2013 Share Posted October 30, 2013 and just to expand on my last post a bit. Let's say this case makes it to a courtroom (again) in some capacity, maybe the upcoming trademark hearing, and the burden of proof is on the accuser to prove the term "redskin" is offensive and disparaging. "Joe the Dictionary Guy" from Webster's is called as a witness to explain on the stand, the research involved in justifying changing the definition of "red skin" from simply "a Native American Indian" in 1974, to "slur for a Native American Indian...usually offensive and disparaging" (to paraphrase) in 2000 whatever. What prompted the change? What would he say? Where is the tangible proof the name has not only been used historically (it has) but that it is offensive in nature? If only a handful of people coming forward in the media is enough to change a dictionary definition (and only a handful of those people are the people who are supposed to actually be offended)...what is the good of the dictionary definition? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.