Spearfeather Posted October 30, 2013 Share Posted October 30, 2013 "We appreciate that they ( NFL ) were willing to meet with us ( Oct. 30 )," Halbritter said. "I don't think anything was really different other than the fact we expressed our concerns about a word that is a dictionary-defined slur." "We listened and respectfully discussed the views of Mr. Halbritter, Oneida Nation Wolf Clan Representative Keller George and their colleagues as well as the sharply differing views of many other Native Americans and fans in general. The meeting was part of an ongoing dialogue to facilitate listening and learning, consistent with the commissioner's comments earlier this year." http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nfl/redskins/2013/10/30/washington-mascot-controversy-oneida-indian-nation-meeting/3316807/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commander PK Posted October 30, 2013 Share Posted October 30, 2013 I have decided that "Cowboys" now offends me, because one of the definitions (definition #4) describes them as anti-american guerilla force from the revolutionary war fighting on behalf of the "red coats." I demand the Dallas "C" words change their name. I am one man. If I can convince a couple hundred people to agree with me, maybe we can get something done. Maybe we can even get some bleeding heart British fans of the Redskins who post here to feel bad for our poor people who must deal with such a disparaging term, and join the fight on our behalf. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinsmarydu Posted October 30, 2013 Share Posted October 30, 2013 I think it was Carl Dukes with Kordell today on the radio talking about this. The point was made that a lot of things that weren't offensive 25 years ago now are. So, that's when I started yelling at the radio, that there are also things that were offensive years ago that aren't now. HTTR! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RFKFedEx Posted October 30, 2013 Share Posted October 30, 2013 My $ says Halbritter gets his meeting w/ the owners. http://www.myfoxdc.com/story/23834099/oneida-indian-nation-requests-meeting-with-all-nfl-owners-on-redskins-name#axzz2jFMS5Wpv Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destino Posted October 30, 2013 Share Posted October 30, 2013 My $ says Halbritter gets his meeting w/ the owners. http://www.myfoxdc.com/story/23834099/oneida-indian-nation-requests-meeting-with-all-nfl-owners-on-redskins-name#axzz2jFMS5Wpv I doubt it. Getting that many deep pockets to agree to meet with you, when you have something to offer, is hard enough. Seeing them agree to being lectured by this guy about the wrongs done by one of their own and their league... I don't see it. Maybe they'll send Goodell to me with him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bang Posted October 30, 2013 Share Posted October 30, 2013 I'd bet they don't. At some point, someone will call this guy on his bull**** publicly. he says in that article that invites them to come "look at their homelands". I'd be for that. Go interview some of the people Halbitter dispossessed for his casino. Go on up there to NY and ask how many of their people are fans of Buffalo Bill(s) Go up and look at the real problems he has helped cause for 'his people' and ask him pointedly and publicly about it. See what they think is more offensive. ~Bang Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destino Posted October 30, 2013 Share Posted October 30, 2013 So I visited that website changethemascot.org and the list of supporters had some surprises. http://www.changethemascot.org/supporters-of-change/ Howard Stern?! That guy thinks the Redskins name is offensive. What planet am I on? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aREDSKIN 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? Here a dictionary definition too- JMS's flacid arguments just are just less than cogent. Word Origin & History redskin "American Indian," 1699. Red as the skin color of Native Americans is from 1587; red man is from 1587. Online Etymology Dictionary, © 2010 Douglas HarperCite This Source http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/redskin?s=t Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commander PK Posted October 30, 2013 Share Posted October 30, 2013 So I visited that website changethemascot.org and the list of supporters had some surprises. http://www.changethemascot.org/supporters-of-change/ Howard Stern?! That guy thinks the Redskins name is offensive. What planet am I on? Go back a few pages and find my post that includes "The Match Game" from Private Parts. Howard is ok, but for him to get on board with people complaining about something being offensive is downright hilarious. People don't want conservative politicians getting on board to defend the name? I would think Howard Stern getting on board the other side is just as bad. ever find out how much that airfare from National to the 14th street bridge was Howard? For those who don't know, or were too young to remember. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_Florida_Flight_90 Howard Stern, then broadcasting for local station WWDC, pretended to call Air Florida reservations the next day while on the air and asked how much a one-way fare from National Airport to the 14th Street Bridge was.[12] He used his typical radio bit of making his voice sound like it was over the phone and pretended to ask Air Florida the fare question. It was done during the news with Robin Quivers. It contributed to his being fired six months later,[13] paving the way for The Greaseman to catapult his career in the DC radio market, while Howard Stern moved on to the larger New York City market and eventually became nationally syndicated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spearfeather Posted October 30, 2013 Share Posted October 30, 2013 http://nypost.com/2013/10/30/oneida-rep-nfl-defended-redskins-name-in-meeting/ Halbritter’s post-meeting press conference at the Marriott Marquis was interrupted briefly by New York State assemblywoman Claudia Tenney, a longtime critic of Halbritter’s legitimacy to represent the tribe. Tenney argued for several minutes with Halbritter and his representative before leaving when threatened with removal by hotel security. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elkabong82 Posted October 30, 2013 Share Posted October 30, 2013 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. The original mascot was not intended to be offensive, that defies logic. Why would anyone use a team to be intentionally offensive to a group it was named after and had a head coach that was, or at least claimed to be, Native American as well as several players? The usage of the NA theme by the team has been cleaned up in several ways so as to maintain respectfulness towards Native Americans. So does Redskins itself need to be cleaned up? Local tribes say no, as do many across the country. The main usage on reservations, from what I have seen, is either in reference to one another as a slang, in reference to the NFL team, or in certain areas in reference to the local high school team. The poll is the Annenberg poll and if you don't consider it conclusive you should state why. Plus, as I and others have said, if it is so offensive then why have we not seen a near-unanimous opposition against it from Native Americans? You and others have tried the blackskin, yellowskin analogy, others including some NAs have said it is akin to the n word, yet we don't see the level of opposition that would be expected from something deemed "usually offensive" in dictionaries. Instead you have NA high schools using it, the origin of the name is as a descriptor (again Oklahoma backs that up), and you have NA people and tribes in favor of the name and fans of the team. Words can and do change meaning over time. Redskins changed from a descriptor to a negative term to a sports team honoring past warriors (much like Patriots, Vikings, Aztecs) and is also used again as a self-descriptor. IMO current and long-standing context is important. The ones claiming it is a slur, I have yet to see any claim that they currently are slurred with the name, and while this is not definitive proof it certainly doesn't help their claim that it is a slur when there are no modern instances/stories of such. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedskinsFan44 Posted October 30, 2013 Share Posted October 30, 2013 So I visited that website changethemascot.org and the list of supporters had some surprises. http://www.changethemascot.org/supporters-of-change/ Howard Stern?! That guy thinks the Redskins name is offensive. What planet am I on? No doubt, a guy who made a fortune being offensive to everyone taking a PC stance. http://www.sportsgrid.com/nfl/howard-stern-washington-redskins-name-change/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elkabong82 Posted October 30, 2013 Share Posted October 30, 2013 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. Actually, I wonder if Snyder could do that. Since the Oxford dictionary and others incorrectly cite the red war paint as the origin of the term Redskins, why not change the mascot to a head with red war paint on it? Then we can easily say that Redskins does not refer to the skin color, but the face paint, and it is defined in the dictionary (which Halbritter keeps citing as evidence). If it's not in reference to skin color, by PC standards, then it isn't derogatory or a slur. We know it won't satisfy Halbritter and Harjo, but it would possibly make the PC brigade in the media back off since skin color would no longer be the issue. Just say we are changing the mascot to reinforce the exact meaning of the name. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ellis Posted October 30, 2013 Share Posted October 30, 2013 What are common slurs for Native Americans?Damn. I honestly can't think of any. Lol. Just a few tv character names that became insulting depending on the inflection of a persons voice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commander PK Posted October 30, 2013 Share Posted October 30, 2013 Plus, as I and others have said, if it is so offensive then why have we not seen a near-unanimous opposition against it from Native Americans? You and others have tried the blackskin, yellowskin analogy, others including some NAs have said it is akin to the n word, yet we don't see the level of opposition that would be expected from something deemed "usually offensive" in dictionaries. because most Native Americans are offended (they just don't know it yet....code for...we haven't convinced them they SHOULD be offended yet) People of other races are going to "save" the Native American people from a name that should be offending them. These poor dumb uneducated Natives couldn't possibly be following their own conscience, because if they were...they would know in their heart of hearts the name is offending them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bang Posted October 30, 2013 Share Posted October 30, 2013 Civilize them. Til it HURTS. Make them know their place, and their place is to be what i decide it is. Again, the hubris of this 'movement' is disgusting. ~Bang Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted October 30, 2013 Share Posted October 30, 2013 Yessss.... let the hate flow though you... feel the dark side take over.... clearly everyone who expresses concern about whether the name is appropriate in this day and age really hates and disrespects Native Americans and wants to keep them down.... C'mon folks. Try and stay real. You can circle the wagons too far sometimes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commander PK Posted October 31, 2013 Share Posted October 31, 2013 The original mascot was not intended to be offensive, that defies logic. it does, but the other side consistently ignores this obvious logic. Why would you name your team after something you were trying to offend? Yeah, Marshall did not care for African Americans...this is well known, that does not mean that he felt the same way about Natives, and that does matter. Should a Football team be named after people of any race or grouping at all? Well, let's see then, there is the Buccaneers, Vikings, Fighting Irish, 49ers, Patriots, Chiefs, Browns, (apparently Paul Brown didn't want the team named after him and the only reason that happened is because the name "Panthers" which they originally wanted was taken already. He "reluctantly" gave his approval. See link) etc. etc. Maybe "people" of any type should be off limits all together? You can never be too careful. ://wiki.answers.com/Q/Why_are_the_Cleveland_Browns_called_The_Browns#slide11 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commander PK Posted October 31, 2013 Share Posted October 31, 2013 Yessss.... let the hate flow though you... feel the dark side take over.... clearly everyone who expresses concern about whether the name is appropriate in this day and age really hates and disrespects Native Americans and wants to keep them down.... C'mon folks. Try and stay real. You can circle the wagons too far sometimes. it's not that man...it's the thought that maybe...just maybe the fact these "other race" defenders of Native American honor should NOT be speaking for them on their behalf about what should "offend" them. For me, I am white. I am not a Native. I would want clear facts before I jumped on board a cause that many of the people I'm supposedly "defending" don't even care about. OR if they do care, they are legitimately worried the name WILL change. Riddle me this...Why do the opinions of the Natives who do not find the name offensive matter less than the ones who do find it offensive? Even when the former is the clear majority based on all available evidence. Again, are these people stupid and just don't know any better? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bang Posted October 31, 2013 Share Posted October 31, 2013 Yessss.... let the hate flow though you... feel the dark side take over.... clearly everyone who expresses concern about whether the name is appropriate in this day and age really hates and disrespects Native Americans and wants to keep them down.... C'mon folks. Try and stay real. You can circle the wagons too far sometimes. Naw, it's not a matter of that ,really.. but the fact is those who have glommed onto this have not bothered to listen when those who they're being offended for tell them "thanks, but no thanks." As far as i'm concerned it's not for me to decide. I can say what I think, but if the NA population tells me I'm wrong, then so be it. i must accept that. So far that question is far from answered, and the main culprits who are now trying to ram this through are also NOT of the group who should decide this issue. I am sick of the UnWise Mikes and Skip baylesses who have taken it upon themselves to decide an issue that is not theirs to decide, and they take it beyond having an opinion. they slander and attack those who disagree.. berate them, Wise will do it personally. Costas,, these clowns have decided that one side of this question is right. (the minority side), and even though they have absolutely NOTHING on the line, they refuse to listen to the side they oppose, which is made up of those they are championing. (You're a lawyer and you're a fair guy, and i'd say that even if you have an opinion about an interview you may be conducting for a case, you still try to find out the truth of the matter, right? this is what they should do, even if they don't like what they may find.) I don't want them to listen to me, I don't have any reason to be or not be offended by it in the only way that counts. I want them to listen to the natives who are saying they're not offended, because they DO count, and they're getting bullied. when Elenor Holmes Norton says "They are only recently becoming aware of the offensive nature of the word".. she's saying "these people don't understand why it offends them and we must teach them". It's galling. ~Bang edit, looks like PK and i wrote the same thing at the same time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elkabong82 Posted October 31, 2013 Share Posted October 31, 2013 because most Native Americans are offended (they just don't know it yet....code for...we haven't convinced them they SHOULD be offended yet) People of other races are going to "save" the Native American people from a name that should be offending them. These poor dumb uneducated Natives couldn't possibly be following their own conscience, because if they were...they would know in their heart of hearts the name is offending them. Reminds me of the NCAA taking away Fighting Sioux despite the local tribe voting in favor of it by bullying the local population through threats of sanctions and game forfeitures on the team. Clearly the NCAA knows what is offensive to those Native Americans more than they do themselves and clearly the NCAA used good morals in its moral crusade. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grego Posted October 31, 2013 Share Posted October 31, 2013 http://nypost.com/2013/10/30/oneida-rep-nfl-defended-redskins-name-in-meeting/ i love her. hope the media actually takes two seconds to ask her about her position. probably wont though.... Here a dictionary definition too- JMS's flacid arguments just are just less than cogent. Word Origin & History redskin "American Indian," 1699. Red as the skin color of Native Americans is from 1587; red man is from 1587. Online Etymology Dictionary, © 2010 Douglas HarperCite This Source http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/redskin?s=t a dictionary that actually reflects meanings of words? preposterous. If it's not in reference to skin color, by PC standards, then it isn't derogatory or a slur. We know it won't satisfy Halbritter and Harjo, but it would possibly make the PC brigade in the media back off since skin color would no longer be the issue. Just say we are changing the mascot to reinforce the exact meaning of the name. i like that. hey, even if it isnt historically accurate, it hasnt stopped susan harjo yet. very good idea. imo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted October 31, 2013 Share Posted October 31, 2013 Naw, it's not a matter of that ,really.. but the fact is those who have glommed onto this have not bothered to listen when those who they're being offended for tell them "thanks, but no thanks." As far as i'm concerned it's not for me to decide. I can say what I think, but if the NA population tells me I'm wrong, then so be it. i must accept that. So far that question is far from answered, and the main culprits who are now trying to ram this through are also NOT of the group who should decide this issue. I am sick of the UnWise Mikes and Skip baylesses who have taken it upon themselves to decide an issue that is not theirs to decide, and they take it beyond having an opinion. they slander and attack those who disagree.. berate them, Wise will do it personally. Costas,, these clowns have decided that one side of this question is right. (the minority side), and even though they have absolutely NOTHING on the line, they refuse to listen to the side they oppose, which is made up of those they are championing. (You're a lawyer and you're a fair guy, and i'd say that even if you have an opinion about an interview you may be conducting for a case, you still try to find out the truth of the matter, right? this is what they should do, even if they don't like what they may find.) I don't want them to listen to me, I don't have any reason to be or not be offended by it in the only way that counts. I want them to listen to the natives who are saying they're not offended, because they DO count, and they're getting bullied. when Elenor Holmes Norton says "They are only recently becoming aware of the offensive nature of the word".. she's saying "these people don't understand why it offends them and we must teach them". It's galling. ~Bang edit, looks like PK and i wrote the same thing at the same time. Sure, I'll buy that stance up to a point. Seems perfectly reasonable to me. Feels a lot different in tenor than the post I was responding to. As I have said, I think the name is an anachronism. It was not intended to be a slur when it was first used by the team, and we don't mean to be rude now, but times have changed and that particular word really kind of is a slur now in 2013 whether we like it or not (as reflected in multiple dictionary definitions) and I don't think we can separate the general current understanding of the word "Redskin" from the team name as easily as Larry believes we can. Nevertheless, I understand that people disagree, especially on this particular message board where we are all fans of the team. I understand why they disagree. With that said, I NEVER stoop to saying that "everyone who wants to keep the name Redskin is a disgusting racist who hates Native Americans Bull Conners blah blah blah" because I know that it isn't true. I respect the opposing opinion, and I do not try to tell anyone that they have bad motivations just because I disagree with them. I think that the people on here who want to keep the name unchanged should try to do the same, instead of making endless hostile circle-jerking comments about how the whole controversy is a fake, a "PC pack of lies, media slanders, paternalistic toward real Native Americans, they are the real racists, they know its all bullcrap but they say it anyway blah blah blah." This kind of echo chamber chatter is just as galling to me as UnWise Mike is to you. It is also totally counterproductive. If you characterize everyone who expresses concern about the name as a Susan Harjo PC extremist or a stupid dupe, they aren't going to listen to you anymore and they are going to oppose you even more strongly. It's human nature. As an aside, I just read this great piece on the issue by a Native American writer. I found it quite compelling. http://deadspin.com/redskins-a-natives-guide-to-debating-an-inglorious-1445909360 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bang Posted October 31, 2013 Share Posted October 31, 2013 Lunchtime read for tomorrow, thanks ~Bang Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grego Posted October 31, 2013 Share Posted October 31, 2013 predicto, heres where i'm at with respecting the other sides position. susan harjo, whom i think we agree is an extremist (to be polite), ray halbritter, whose motivations, background and credentials are questionable to say the least, amanda blackhorse, who wants all native american imagery gone and, like, harjo, falsely believes the origin of the name comes from scalping. then, i find myself questioning 'why' someone is offended by the term. some say its been used as a slur. i think a reasonable position is 'if it was used as a slur (despite the fact it was not initially a slur) that doesnt mean the word has in fact become a slur'. unless, of course, it has. and i dont think its been anywhere shown that it has become one. i believe its the opposite- that the name is so synonymous with the team and positivity, that any possible use of the word as a slur is laughable. i realize i take a hard line on this issue. but i dont take one out of blind tradition, or fear of having something taken from me, or ignorance. i'm well aware of the issues surrounding the name- much more so than the kornheisers or bayless' who are in the business and ought to know better. the article you cited is the closest thing ive read to date to a reasonable article on the matter, still, i dont agree with much of it. at the very least, the author deserves some respect and does not appear to be like these loons and charlatans currently serving as the voice on the issue. i dont think most of us have a problem with sane discourse on this issue. so far, though, its been a circus. and its been a one sided circus, which makes some of us a little edgy. just my .02 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.